There are a number members of this forum that are proponents of theories that dispute cosmological expansion as the cause of the red shift observed to distant light sources [galaxies and quasars mostly].

If the red shift is not due to cosmological expansion, then the universe could very well be much older than 13.7 billion years, and the state of the universe seven to twelve billion light-years away and seven to twelve billion years ago should pretty much the same as what we see [more easily] within only a few hundred million light-years.

If differences are observed that can't be disputed, this will cause some difficulty and need for modification to these theories. If no difference is observed when one should be, this will be difficult for the Big Bang cosmology to handle.

Note that there have been some surprises in the chemical maturity of the early universe. This may not be a slam dunk for either side.

I'm looking for observations and pointers to on-line papers and research.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I think one has to understand the idea of surprises in context. When the first extrasolar planets were discovered, and found to be both (a) giant, and (b) really close to their parent stars, the astronomical community was genuinely surprised. Everyone had assumed that such proximity to the star would blow away the atmosphere of any gas giant planet very quickly. But noone had ever actually run a model, or done a calculation, they just assumed that it should be so, that it made sense. But once such surprising planets were found, there was a flurry of activity running models and calculating atmosphere erosion rates, and all the results quickly showed that noone should have been surprised. Had they done the calculations first, they would not have been surprised. The atmospheres are in fact far more robust than guessed.

The state of affairs concerning the chemical maturity of the early universe is quite the same, except that there is little in the way of models to run. It is far more difficult to model galaxy formation than it is to model atmospheric erosion. So the surprise is based purely on intuition, a guess, that galaxies should evolve "slowly". But in fact, nobody really knows enough about how galaxies form, in order to know enough to think they should be surprised. People who don't like big bang cosmology like to use the idea of surprise to suggest that there is a real problem here for big bang cosmology. But the reality is that rapid galactic evolution in the early universe, in big bang cosmology, won't be a problem until there is a real model, in the context of which the problem can be seen quantitatively. For the time being, it's enough to know that galaxies evidently formed very quickly, and to try to understand how that happened, and through that understanding, discover if it really is a real problem.

One must also not lose sight of the salient fact that galaxies in the early universe do not look like galaxies in our current universe. Morphological evolution is most obvious, as illustrated by images from the venerable Hubble Space Telescope:

• Hubble Identifies Primeval Galaxies, Uncovers New Clues to the Universe's Evolution , December 6, 1994.
• Hubble Sheds Light on the "Faint Blue Galaxy" Mystery, July 25, 1995, an observation that the early universe was dominated by galaxies that were physically smaller than is typical in the current universe.
• Hubble Sees Early Building Blocks of Today's Galaxies, September 4, 1996, especially the reference to faint blue sub-galactic clumps, reinforcing my earlier comment.
• The Secret Lives of Galaxies Unveiled in Deep Survey, June 19, 2003, a reference to the GOODS survey that then included HST & Chandra, and will now include the Spitzer Space Telescope; results thus far are consistent with the hierarchical model of galaxies being built from smaller sub-galaxies or dwarf galaxies.
• Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies, March 9, 2004, the Ultra Deep Field, too soon for much analysis, but look for this to figure in the study of early galaxies.

I don't have time to try to summarize the literature now. But I can tell you that there is a great deal of evidence to show real galactic evolution (i.e., despite some claims to the contrary, galaxies "today" do not look like galaxies in the early universe). There is also much work on galaxy formation. The major stumbling block has been a lack of computational power. Newer, faster computers, and new methods for solving gravitational million-body and trillion-body problems, are fast making real models of real galaxy formation something that we can expect in the next decade, if not sooner.

Hooray at last a post by Tim Thompson I can actually understand!
Must be getting something through osmosis. Gosh reading is good for you!

Now to follow the links and see if I can understand further.

Thanks Tim,

I've seen most of these already, and I personally start assuming that this is correct. I made a statement about this in another thread recently and was called on it. Madman pointed to this site http://www.gemini.edu/project/announcement...ess/2004-1.html, and quoted a section that says that we are seeing lots of star burst galaxies in the most distant images, but that there is an observational bias that we would ONLY see starburst galaxies at that distance and redshift unless we took MUCH deeper images. The source seemed reputable.

The question came up about density of galaxies in the early universe compared to currently. For z=6, all other things being equal [they aren't] there should be about 50 times as many galaxies per cubic megaparsec as we see locally, but none of us could tell what kind of density we were seeing in the HUDF.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Because I choose to believe that nature opposes "infinite density" as strongly as it does a vacuum and because I choke on the concept of "something from nothing" I am being converted to bigbangism at something less than glacial speed. In an attempt to delude myself that I have an open mind on the subject, I try to think as if the big bang really happened. So much for my bias.

Can the ratio of hydrogen to the other elements as observed spectroscopically from 12 billion years ago until now be a help in sorting this out? Is our technology currently up to the task at a sufficiently accurate quantitative level? If star formation was initiated early and due to the much higher density (same mass smaller volume) it seems reasonable that the collapse from protostellar coulds into stars would have generated a high ratio of stars with masses and lives commensurate with supernova formation hence a more rapid production of second generation clouds from which stars of high metalicity and life supporting planets might have formed.

Immediately after the big bang the universe is believed to have been mostly hydrogen and helium (80/20 or so). If there were a large number of element factories in the first 2 billion years the ratio of helium and hydrogen to the heavier elements should be measurably different as a function of time assuming spectral analysis of the starlight from the 11-billion year old galaxies is doable. This may be an easier measurement than that of counting the number of galaxies per unit volume since some of them may be obscured or too faint.

How accurately have we assessed the content of the space between the galaxies at the present time?

In another part of my brain I brainstorm for a method by which the magnetism of black holes assists the escape of high energy photons along the magnetic poles which decay into particles and anti-particles thus recycling hydrogen. If true this would corrupt the hydrogen ratio characterization of the history of the universe.

More later on the statistical probabilities of higher element generation shortly after the end of the inflationary period prior to star formation.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

i agree with Tim on a few points...surprises are just new data that usually fits with general/standard theory...if they don't, then it means "new science" to explore, and new lessons about the workings of the universe (something to get excited about..not distressed by). you should only worry if someone is trying to annex new (or any) information to bolster some bodgy theory.

i'm not here to push any big bang or steady state theory.. and i'm not interested in being part of an argument thats based on a competition between 2 defined competitors.
i posted the link to the gemini deep deep survey results, partly because it appeared to qualify the statement put by antoniseb. "it is very easy to show that distant galaxies have a greater likelyhood of being smaller, in a merger, having an AGN, and in having starburst behavior"
(it also addresses the data Tim has posted as i'll explain later)

the authors themselves raised the issue of the unexpected (by theory) results. Tim agrees with them, that theory might need to be tweaked to accommodate the changes necessary for the data to fit hierarchical models....big bang cosmology was sort of "painted into a corner" by the pronouncement of 13.7 billion years from the wmap results. but now the wmap data is under revue over concerns of contamination, and who knows..the goalpost of 13.7 bly might even be moved to a greater distance and iron out any problems about evolution/time?..anything could happen.


Tim said
"People who don't like big bang cosmology like to use the idea of surprise to suggest that there is a real problem here for big bang cosmology"

please don't equate the presentation of information as a product and proof that the presenter has a specific agenda to promote..ie: you surprised us! therefore you must be an anti big bang nut (who are the only ones that "try to suggest that there is a real problem for big bang cosmology").
sorry Tim, i didn't put the words in the authors' mouths...i just passed the story along.

the authors of the article surprised me too..am i supposed to think that they are bad, nuts or really anti big bang/steady state theorists in disguise?
they say, that the data shows objects that shouldn't be there (according to big bang evolutionary theory)...it's their "surprise" that is being promoted by them in the article..shouldn't we empathise with their concerns rather than lump them in (by association) with the "steady state nuts" and think of them as losers for not realising "everything's okay...it's not the end of the world".

i presented the article in the same way the gemini team did....neither i, nor they declared.."aha!..steady state wins!"
their data did not dovetail with standard big bang evolution, for them (and as a situation that they project upon their peers) it seems problematic......they even wonder if they need a new model?...the "surprise (that shouldn't be a surprise)" apparently strains credibility of their models ("It is unclear if we need to tweak the existing models or develop a new one in order to understand this finding,")
but, the accepted evidence still appears to lean more heavily in the favour of a big bang, so, attempts will be made to correlate the data...that's it (for the big bang hierarchical modellers), as you've also concluded.

but that still leaves the main point i raised in the other thread...that if "the team" is out trying to square their model with reality, then there is still no closure on the subject.



sorry to use harsh thoughts in reply, but you set the level of perception as one of "a bad guy(steady state nut) just rode into town, looks like trouble".

there's no trouble, so, relax.

************************************************** *******************

Tim, the hst might seem to be the best tool to apply to this problem, but it isn't....yes, it is above the atmosphere, bypassing problems of atmospheric distortion and obscuration of wavelengths... and has made the deepest and most detailed detections (within inherent limits).

but this does not help it do a better job than gemini in deep imaging and spectroscopic surveys.

hubble (like all telescopes/detectors) is limited by the frequencies it can obtain...but however distant/redshifted an object is, will determine what portion of it's energetic components will shift into the observable range of hubble...(nicmos does extend this range into the near infrared...but not as far as gemini).

a few years back there was some concern amongst the hst crew about this predicament. that the farther away an object is, the further it's light will be redshifted (uv shifted into optical..optical shifted into near ir..near ir shifted into mid ir). and depending on the structure of the galaxy viewed, different morphologies will be seen by hst.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/...2001/04/image/a

************************************************** ******************

hubbles' (including nicmos') range does not extend as far as gemini(north) into the infrared.

range of hst (with nicmos) = 1150 - 25000 angstroms = 115 - 2500 nanometres = 0.115 - 2.5 microns
range of Gemini = 10000 - 55000 angstroms = 1000 - 5500 nanometres = 1 - 5.5 microns
************************************************** **************************

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/newsroom/news/al...altair03_e.html

quote from the article:
"One of the big questions facing the international astronomy community today is how stars and galaxies form. While the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) provides excellent high-resolution images, Gemini coupled with Altair will be able to capture infrared images of fainter, hence more distant, galaxies with three times the resolution. Astronomers also need to study the spectra of distant galaxies to understand what is happening within them.

The Gemini Observatory's light gathering power (10 times that of the HST) combined with the extra resolution provided by the Canadian-built Altair, will allow Gemini's infrared spectrographs to study the inner workings of galaxies in depth.

"So now Hubble becomes our finding chart, and Gemini does the physics on what Hubble sees," says Dr. Matt Mountain, Director of the Gemini Observatory."

************************************************** *************************

at high redshifts, optical components will shift towards infrared.
redshifted ultraviolet/blue components/objects will be most easily seen by hst.
redshifted red components/objects will be better seen by gemini.

to present hst images as evidence of:

1) "true forms at high redshift" ....is incorrect...they are instead the bright/high energy components of the objects. (ie: "it is very easy to show that distant galaxies have a greater likelyhood of being smaller, in a merger, having an AGN, and in having starburst behavior")

2) "the whole menagerie" ..is incorrect...red objects have shifted into near infrared/mid infrared and are not represented well.

you should have a new catch cry "no science without representation!"


a better solution to the problem of observing highly redshifted objects will be covered by the jwst.

************************************************** *****************

Thanks for a solid contribution to the topic. I've read my post over and don't see how it did anything to interpret which side of this topic you were on. I am thankful for your having pointed out the possible hole.
Sorry if that's the way this comes across. I was interested in knowing what evidence is out there that can resolve this question. I am interested in the question because it appears to be a strong argument for the expanding universe cosmologies. I also feel that it is important to challenge accepted models, but the new model must not fail to explain what is observed, or it is not really a challenge. I see this sort of thread as giving more credence to alternative theories than silence, and at the same time, it helps winnow out the really junky theories pretty quickly.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

maybe there is no viable alternative theory at the moment...there might be some important factor that we have not discovered yet..and might not discover for years/decades/etc?

Yes, but we can't know if alternative theories are impossible, or simply constrained by observations without exploring them. Most of these theories aren't terribly well expressed or worked out with all phenomena in mind. I'm interested in trying to know what the proponent actually means. If a theory starts off seeming too bodgy, you don't need to explore them.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

here's a qualification for the statement that hubble cannot see red objects in deep surveys, and gemini can. (corrected version)

the deep field observations relate to the search for hierarchical or evolutionary objects at redshifts higher than 1, which equates to distances greater than 8 billion light years (see redshift/distance image).
************************************************** ************************
in the hierarchical model image supplied by the gemini crew you can see 3 groupings defining expected evolutionary forms in an area spanning 8-11.75 bly (billion light years).

in the area 8 - 9.65 bly (z = 1 - 1.575), nearly formed galaxies exist.
between 9.65 - 10.8 bly (z = 1.575 - 2.35) galaxies are barely half formed.
between 10.8 - 11.75 bly (z = 2.35 - 3.55) there are only proto-galactic building blocks.

considering that we can see "building blocks" (dwarf galaxies) in our local area of the universe it would be best not to infer anything specific by observing them in association with larger and more developed galaxies in the distant past...it would be preferable to see these building blocks by themselves and so the area to study would be the zone where only they should reside...ie: at redshift z > 2.35.

************************************************** ************************
the visible light range is considered to lie between 400 - 700 nanometres (nm).
the redshift denominator "z" is a multiplier that is applied to wavelengths to determine the amount of "redshifting"...(plus 1 * the wavelength).

*****************************
lyman alpha ultraviolet (added for reference...see antoniseb's post below)

z=0 120nm
z=1 240nm
z=2 360nm
z=3 480nm
z=4 600nm
z=5 720nm
z=6 840nm
z=7 960nm

*****************************
400nm violet

z=0 400nm
z=1 800nm
z=2 1200nm
z=3 1600nm
z=4 2000nm
z=5 2400nm
z=6 2800nm
z=7 3200nm

*****************************
550nm yellow/green

z=0 550nm
z=1 1100nm
z=2 1650nm
z=3 2200nm
z=4 2750nm
z=5 3300nm
z=6 3850nm
z=7 4400nm
*****************************
700nm red

z=0 700nm
z=1 1400nm
z=2 2100nm
z=3 2800nm
z=4 3500nm
z=5 4200nm
z=6 4900nm
z=7 5600nm
*****************************

range:

hst(wfpc2) 115 - 1100nm
hst(nicmos) 800 - 2500nm
gemini 2000 - 5500nm

at z > 2.575, nicmos cannot see red objects
at z > 3.55, nicmos cannot see yellow/green objects
at z > 5.25, nicmos cannot see blue/violet objects

whereas, gemini can see all these colours up to z = 6.85

************************************************** *******

during the period describing the investigation of blue building blocks exhibited by Tim (1994 - 1996), nicmos was not yet installed....and so the range of hst(wfpc2) did not exceed 1100nm.

at z > 0.56...hst cannot see red objects
at z > 1...hst cannot see yellow/green objects
at z > 1.75...hst cannot see blue/violet objects

hst alone is unable to view the visible components or objects residing in the area assigned to building blocks (z > 2.35). the best it could do is see ultraviolet emissions which are the product of high energy events...ie: agn, starburst activity, etc.

in the area assigned to half formed galaxies (z = 1.575 - 2.35), hst cannot see red or yellow objects and blue/violet objects are very poorly represented.

in the area where nearly formed galaxies reside (z = 1 - 1.575), hst can only see blue/violet objects (or higher..ie: uv).


and so hst with or without nicmos** is not a robust enough tool to apply to this problem...hence the importance of gemini, which very adequately is...especially regarding the crucial area of proof expected to lie at z > 2.35.

************************************************** ********

**through the building block area of:
z = 2.35 - 2.575, nicmos loses red frequency.
z = 2.575 - 3.55, nicmos loses yellow frequency

z = 3.55 is the cut off point for building blocks?..ie: even they don't exist beyond this distance? not really correct since we supposedly now see objects out to z = 10.
a higher hubble constant of 70 or 75 pushes the redshift scale up to cover this range, but also means that the visible wavelengths pass beyond hst(wfpc2 and nicmos) earlier as well.

************************************************** ********

the following graphic was used for the z = distance relationship (green lines)



taken from this site..

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Marc...d/Spinrad1.html

copyright credits to Curtis Manning and Mr Spinrad?...of caltech.

Thanks madman,

That's a useful chart and tabulation on the redshifted colors.

I think it is also useful to take a look at the Lyman Alpha [120nm] and Lyman continuum [around 90nm] colors, Hubble can see these colors out to z=8 or 9 fairly easily.

Yes this only shows us star-forming regions and AGNs, but we can see the same locally as well with FUSE and other instruments.

I'm not sure if your wonderful overlay technique could be used to show a comparison like this since we are not comparing the same piece of sky at the same magnification for this question.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I saw a paper on arXive today that looks at this subject:
Galaxy Evolution Paper

This paper makes it clear that there is obivous, observed galactic evolution going on correlated to redshift. Naturally the details are complex, but the short version points out that currently we have about 75% spiral galaxies, 23% elliptical galaxies, and 2% peculiar [merging] galaxies. At z=1.5 the number of peculiars was equal to the number of the others. This result takes into account the less regular appearance of galaxies seen in UV light.

One main thrust of the paper is the historic development of mass fraction of the universe that is in luminous bodies [stars] at various z-values. It points out that if you look at galaxies before the main star forming period 5-8Gyears ago, there are fewer galaxies visible. At z=3 about 10% as much matter was in luminous bodies as now.

Note that when you download this paper, it says that it is 36 pages, but the actual text part is only about 9 pages.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I guess I'll just add this to the discussion: if redshift is not related to distance but a measure of it's youth (as Arp has proposed) than we would also expect high redshift objects to be morphologically different from the mature, low-redshift galaxies. The real problem is that it is difficult to distinguish between these options.

Cheers.

Yes, it is difficult to distinguish between the two. The evolution of the cosmos [if demonstrated] pretty much elimintates the steady state ideas, and also confirms the age of the universe [perhaps with less certainty than the WMAP team claims].

I haven't read a lot of Halton C. Arp's recent work. I remember thinking that his catalog of peculiar galaxies was pretty cool. I understand that right now he's a proponant of theories that the cosmological redshift isn't connected to unversal expansion. But I can't discuss his ideas just yet.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

i consider both to be probable/real...ie: distance redshifting and intrinsic redshifting.

in that nuclear jet shot, you can see:

1) an acceptable style of intrinsic redshifting (redshifting along the length of the jet)
2) bizarre blue/red-shifting (due to a helical flow?)
and
3) a possible extrapolation that's in line with Arp ie:

if the blob fully separates and maintains it's integrity (it is 1000 ly long)...it might stay swaddled in redshifted radio emitting material for a while.....spark star formation near it's centre...and end up looking like a highly redshifted (and high energy) object to radio telescopes.

whether or not the last 2 scenarios are or could be true, i'm not sure, but it doesn't hurt to log any idea (no matter how wacky it is) to memory...if it fits with reality later..great...if not..there shouldn't be a problem anyway.

I agree. I am inclined to put wacky [or even somewhat non-standard] models to the test of as many observed phenomena as I can find that seem relevant. If a different model passes these tests, I tuck it away in a very special place.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Funny though that a lot of people are not even prepared to consider novel ideas, they just seem to be looking for a reason to strike out at people proposing these new ideas. I've seen a number of dicussions where the proposer is really attacked, it seems that not everyone thinks wacky ideas are not a problem. But it's great to hear you expressing this attitude, and I can only say that I fully agree with this stance.

There are several reasons for intrinsic redshift to be likely; besides connecting bridges between high- and low-redshift objects and the grouping of quasars around mature elliptical galaxies (Arp), the latest surveys (wich have sampled a large number of objects) show that the redshift distribution of QSO's (quasi stellar objects) show distinct peaks (Burbidge et al.), which would be a problem when only cosmological (expansion) redshift is considered.

Cheers.