Early Galaxy Evolution (High-z Metallicity)

[coldcreation]

The problem is that technology has caught up with the standard model for galaxy evolution, and telescope resolution has now reached the point that exceedingly distant and massive objects are observed to contain high metallicity. We have seen this problem looming for nearly twenty years but until recently have been unable to verify the extent to which observations of deep space objects could meet the requirements for survivability of the standard model.

 

Efforts to develop a full understanding of galaxy formation have been embodied the Hubble Ultra Deep Field program. Results have not offered clear evidence for hierarchical evolution of galaxies from fragmentary star clusters to pathological colliding galaxies, to full spirals and ellipticals. The strongest direct visual evidence to determine cosmological evolution consistent with the hot big bang/cold dark matter cosmology where the universe expands from a hot dense state has not been forthcoming. So the idea that matter cools and coagulates and triggers the onset of star formation shortly after an epoch called the "dark ages" or "redshift desert" has run into serious trouble. Scientists would have been delighted if observational evidence had been found consistent within this framework, but new surprises on observational fronts have surfaced that challenge theory.

 

 

Simply put, and pending further (I still have to study the latest findings) investigation, the supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account.

 

 

Efforts to develop a new model of galaxy formation are embodied in the idea that stars formed much earlier than previously thought, and so too galaxies (that was already a problem post-1998 SNe Ia data). In effect, observations that show metal-rich massive objects thriving during the supposed "dark ages" are not easily absorbed into the mainstream world view.

 

The case is arguably not closed yet. I'm taking bets and predictions on the outcome of future missions designed to explore even deeper patches of space. The JWST may turn out to be the instrument, par excellence, that will determine the tenability of differing models. If you like to gamble, you might want to bet against finding an era of galaxy formation.

 

 

Recall, all it takes is the confirmation of one mature metal-rich galaxy - though several would be more compelling - located at redshift z equivalent to an epoch 1 Gyr after the outset of expansion to seriously undermine the standard model. Estimates could then be made on the age of the galaxy. If it takes more than 1 Gyr to produce the required metallicity it would mean that stellar nucleosynthesis began before the big bang (unless, of course, more "new physics" is introduced).

 

 

By the time the JWST is deployed - 2012 at the earliest - all bets should be in. Only one model will be able to survive the direct frontal assault.

 

 

 

Any takers?

 

 

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

...

 

Simply put, and pending further (I still have to study the latest findings) investigation, the supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account (Buta & Block 2001, Thomson, R.I, 2000, Ellis 1997, Takamiya 1999).

 

...

 

What is clear form the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, at this premature stage in their interpretation, is the fact that there are many galaxies at distances where according to the standard model there should be none, or few.

 

Galaxies were thought to have been forming at an even later stage, by gravitational collapse out of initial density fluctuations. Completion of the initial collapse phase was believed to have been less than 10 billion years ago (Sandage 1993 p. 5).

 

Galaxies would have had to evolve so quickly that their most important changes occurred less than a billion years of ground zero, t = 0. The new findings show galaxies thought to have existed 400 to 800 million years after the initial blast. Visibly, the new evidence contradicts all predictions.

 

This is not how it was meant to be.

 

 

CC

[modest]

The case is arguably not closed yet. I'm taking bets and predictions on the outcome of future missions designed to explore even deeper patches of space. The JWST may turn out to be the instrument, par excellence, that will determine the tenability of differing models. If you like to gamble, you might want to bet against finding an era of galaxy formation.

 

...

 

By the time the JWST is deployed - 2012 at the earliest - all bets should be in.

 

Any takers?

 

I'd give 1-50 odds on this bet:

Regardless of JWST's observations, you will say they argue against the big bang.

 

Only one model will be able to survive the direct frontal assault.

 

How many models survived COBE and WMAP?

 

-modest

[Eclogite]

Simply put, and pending further (I still have to study the latest findings) investigation, the supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account (Buta & Block 2001, Thomson, R.I, 2000, Ellis 1997, Takamiya 1999).

Please provide more specific information on the Buta & Block paper. I find two 2001 papers by these authors. You seem to be referencing their Astrophysical Journal article. However, I am at a loss to see where in this paper you see confirmation of your statement that 'the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact'.

Can you clarify what in this paper you feel suggests or demonstrates that? The authors have proposed a more rigorous classification scheme for barred spiral galaxies. The do not appear to have commented upon observations of the type you refer to. Perhaps I am misreading - I await your guidance.

[coldcreation]

Please provide more specific information on the Buta & Block paper. I find two 2001 papers by these authors. You seem to be referencing their Astrophysical Journal article. ....

 

I could not find a relation with the Buta-Block work and the text above. I just spent over an hour searching. Until I do find the paper, I have removed Buta & Block from my initial post.

 

I actually had that reference for barred spiral structure research, not for galaxy evolution at high-z. So I think it was an error on my part to have included them into the list above.

 

 

 

CC

[Eclogite]

Thank you for your response.

Turning to the Thomson paper could you explain how it is relevant?

They appear to be dealing with the character and evolution of infra-red galaxies, noting that "The morphologies of the sample galaxies are diverse and provide further support for the idea that they are created by the collision or interactions of spiral galaxies."

I could not find anything in this paper that supported your declared idea that "'the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact'."

[coldcreation]

Thank you for your response.

Turning to the Thomson paper could you explain how it is relevant?

They appear to be dealing with the character and evolution of infra-red galaxies, noting that "The morphologies of the sample galaxies are diverse and provide further support for the idea that they are created by the collision or interactions of spiral galaxies."

I could not find anything in this paper that supported your declared idea that "'the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact'."

 

 

Hello all,

 

 

Eclogite, in this work: Evidence for Galaxy Formation at High Redshift, or if you prefer the PDF version, David Thompson (et al, 2000) wrote this:

 

Abstract:

 

Metcalfe et al. (1995' date=' 1996) have shown that galaxy counts

from the UV to the near-IR are well-fitted by simple evolutionary models

where the space density of galaxies remains constant with look-back time

while the star-formation rate rises exponentially. We now extend these

results, first by using data from the Herschel Deep Field to show that

these same models give detailed fits to the faint galaxy r - i : b - r

colour-colour diagram. We then use these models to predict the number

counts of high redshift galaxies detected by the Lyman break technique.

At z = 3 there is almost exact agreement between our prediction and the

data, suggesting that the space density of galaxies at z = 3 may be close

to its local value. At z = 4 the space density of bright galaxies remains

unchanged; however, the space density of dwarf galaxies is significantly

lower than it is locally, suggesting that we have detected an epoch of

dwarf galaxy formation at z = 4. Finally, significant numbers of Lyman-

break galaxy candidates are also detected at z = 6 in the Hubble and

Herschel Deep Fields; taking this observation together with a number of

recent detections of spectroscopically confirmed z = 6 galaxies suggests

that the space density of bright galaxies at z = 6 remains comparable

to the local space density and thus that the epoch of formation of bright

galaxies may lie at yet higher redshift. [/quote']

 

Certainly these results were unexpected in hierarchical galaxy formation theories. Regardless (for the time being) of star formation rate with lookback time, it can be interpreted that because galaxy density remains constant, there is little, if any, evolution with cosmic epoch. Note that at z = 3, z = 4 and z = 6 space density of bright galaxies is virtually identical to that observed locally. Of course it can be (and is) argued that the "epoch of formation of bright galaxies may lie at yet higher redshift."

 

I see it, though, as yet another example (that should culminate after 2013 with the JWST) of observations that show practically no evolution of the galaxy population as far back as z = 6. It still remains to be see if current theory can cope with the same observational data at z = 7. I obviously have my doubts, but remain open to the possibility that there may surface compelling evidence for hierarchical evolution of galaxies from fragmentary star clusters to "pathological" colliding galaxies, to full spirals and ellipticals, i.e., strong direct visual evidence for cosmological evolution consistent with the hot big bang/cold dark matter cosmology.

 

Until now that evidence has not been forthcoming. And I think there are very good reasons for that.

 

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Thank you for your response.

Turning to the Thomson paper could you explain how it is relevant?

They appear to be dealing with the character and evolution of infra-red galaxies, noting that "The morphologies of the sample galaxies are diverse and provide further support for the idea that they are created by the collision or interactions of spiral galaxies."

I could not find anything in this paper that supported your declared idea that "'the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact'."

 

 

 

As far as Thompson, R.I., (et al) you can look at DISTANT RED GALAXIES IN THE HUBBLE ULTRA DEEP FIELD (2005-7)(I'm still looking for the 2001 paper). Unfortunately the galaxies observed were not very high redshift, so the paper may be irrelevant.

 

In another paper, however, entitled HIGH REDSHIFT GALAXY EVOLUTION FROM THE INFRARED AND OPTICAL OBSERVATIONS IN THE ULTRA DEEP FIELD, Thompson, R.I., studied very high redshift objects. This is what he writes:

 

 

5 candidate galaxies for redshifts of 7 to 9 have been identified in the UDF. The reality of

these sources is still being checked. Given the source recovery statistics these 5 sources' date=' if valid,

indicate 20 actual sources in the field with a F160W limiting magnitude of 27.5. This is 1.5?

below the predicted number of 50 with no evolution of the luminosity function between redshifts

3 and 8[/quote']

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

CC said

 

By the time the JWST is deployed - 2012 at the earliest - all bets should be in. Only one model will be able to survive the direct frontal assault.

 

Deep field images do show high metal content.

 

Put you bets on now.

 

My bet will be on recyclic universe.

 

and the so called black holes are just compacted cores made up of degerate matter and that jets mostly expell matter from the core and take with it matter that gets in its way.

 

I also bet that the Big Bang theory will be out by 2 yrs time.

[modest]

I'm going to repost something I wrote in material creation if it's ok. It was a reply to CC in that thread, but is very relevant here.

 

From this post

 

The explanation few are likely to adhere to is that iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means.

The mans by which iron is produced is not unknown - it is very well know.

 

I do not share your frequently stated hypothesis that the oldest galaxies or quasars observed should be (according to BBT) metal or heavy-element free. Our best information says otherwise:

 

• Between recombination and the oldest observed quasars was the epoch of reionization

 

Thermodynamics of the early universe

 

• The most likely and most plausible candidate for reionization is population III stars.

Abraham Loeb - 2007

 

• Between .1 < T < 1 Gyrs the universe was a sea of massive stars. The maximum star formation density was already peaked before z = 5.5 and more than half of the stars today are older than 10 Gys

 

The cosmic star formation history

 

• The first and most numerous stars were massive and started forming at approximately 100 to 200 million years. Theory predicts this, evidence of this has been found, and there is no reason to think it is not the case.

Tracing the first stars with fluctuations of the cosmic infrared background

 

• Massive population III stars quickly fused H and He to mostly C, O, Si, and Fe and elements between.

 

Wiki Stellar Population

 

• Over several million years the PIII stars formed, fused all the fuel they could, and distributed their heavy elements through supernova

 

The evolution and explosion of massive stars Woosley and Weaver

 

• A population III star will form, fuse its fuel, and supernova in about 10 million years.

Making astronomical history

 

Massive Star Evolution Through the Ages

 

So, is it a problem as you suggest that quasars have absorption lines of iron? Is it a problem that high-redshift galaxies have heavy elements? Is it correct to say "iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means"?

 

Not at all, this is expected.

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Hello modest

 

 

I will read your above links, some I have already read.

 

You said

 

So, is it a problem as you suggest that quasars have absorption lines of iron? Is it a problem that high-redshift galaxies have heavy elements? Is it correct to say "iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means"?

 

Not at all, this is expected.

 

If you are trying to support the Big Bang I would expect that statement.

 

As far as I know the formation of Fe is within the solar envelope. It would take 10 Gyrs for a normal star such as ours to go nova and release the Fe unless it got sucked into a so called black hole and releasing the Fe, but in this case most of the matter would become degenerate within the BH.

 

Now imagine deep field images 13.2 Gyrs and having super cluters of clusters of galaxies forming within 500 Million yrs. Not possible in any maths calculation. But! the Big Bang theory will solve this problem by adding ad hog theories that make it so. Now go figger what science that they use to support this.

 

 

A quarsar is a star like body produced by EMR released from colliding or stars collapsing under the influence of a BH. There are other quarsars produced via jets, but these are mini quarsars.

[Eclogite]

Coldcreation, I have tried desparately to find a diplomatic means of making the following observations. After much reflection I have decided that the best diplomacy is that delivered through direct honesty.

 

Earlier you offered four references (Buta & Block 2001, Thomson, R.I, 2000, Ellis 1997, Takamiya 1999)in support of your claim that "the supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account."

Now that is a very clear claim and we might equally expect the four referenced documents to offer clear support for the claim. What actually emerges from a review of these?

The Buta and Block paper offers nothing at all in support of the contention.

The Thompson paper cannot, it seems be found, and for two alternative papers by Thompson, one you concede is probably irrelevant, while the other seems to contain a significant question mark upon the validity of its data.

The Takimaya paper also appears to be irrelevant, since it relates only to galaxies with cosmological redshifts of z</= 1.

This leaves us with only the Ellis paper from 1997. Ellis seems to have been prodigious in his publications that year. There are several papers that may address the point you raise and may well support it - I would welcome your direction to the correct one.

 

What is my point in all this? You have offered four papers to support your thesis. Of these, at best, one may be relevant. The other three are not, yet the impression created by offering four rather than one, is to convey a more solid basis for your thesis that is not, apparently, supported by research to the extent you imply. Do you not feel, coldcreation, that this could at best be described as rather sloppy research and places the rest of your arguments into a questionable light?

[coldcreation]

I'm going to repost something I wrote in material creation if it's ok. It was a reply to CC in that thread, but is very relevant here.

 

From this post

 

 

The means by which iron is produced is not unknown - it is very well know.

 

I do not share your frequently stated hypothesis that the oldest galaxies or quasars observed should be (according to BBT) metal or heavy-element free. Our best information says otherwise:

So, is it a problem as you suggest that quasars have absorption lines of iron? Is it a problem that high-redshift galaxies have heavy elements? Is it correct to say "iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means"?

 

Not at all, this is expected.

 

I still have to look at all your links, but for the time being, what I meant to write, or should have wrote, is that according to the BBT, the early universe should have been metal-poor, not metal-free.

 

I think the exact metallicity still needs to be properly determined. So again, it is too early to call the cards.

 

The iron I refer to is the large quantities (if indeed that quantity turns out to be confirmed), not the low iron predicted by BBT. If high iron content is confirmed, then there is no physical way for BBT to produce it (without the invention of Pop III stars: which still need to be confirmed empirically.)

 

 

 

I will come back later with more on the subject.

 

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Coldcreation, I have tried desparately to find a diplomatic means of making the following observations. After much reflection I have decided that the best diplomacy is that delivered through direct honesty.

 

I've already corrected my error above.

 

My point is this: If it is too early to make claims that large-redshift galaxies show high metallicity, i.e., highly evolved stellar populations (I have provided referrences to this effect), then, it is also premature to claim there is sufficient evolution in the look-back time to be in agreement with BBT: both possibilities appear still on the table according to observations.

 

It looks, again, like the JWST may provide further support one way or another.

 

In the mean time, it is very interesting (and fun) to see what has been observed, and to speculate as to the ultimate outcome of such investigations.

 

It is also interesting to point out that the introduction of a new brand of stars (e.g., population III) is now required, and that modern cosmology must continually push back the time at which stellar processes began producing the currently observed abundance of iron (at an epoch where there should have been no stars at all: according to the 1990's standard model).

 

 

 

CC

[coldcreation]

Hello All

 

Put your bets on now.

 

My bet will be on recyclic universe.

 

and the so called black holes are just compacted cores made up of degerate matter and that jets mostly expell matter from the core and take with it matter that gets in its way.

 

I also bet that the Big Bang theory will be out by 2 yrs time.

 

So what is your prediction based on current (and future) observations?

 

CC

[modest]

Hello All

 

As far as I know the formation of Fe is within the solar envelope. It would take 10 Gyrs for a normal star such as ours to go nova and release the Fe unless it got sucked into a so called black hole and releasing the Fe, but in this case most of the matter would become degenerate within the BH.

 

Now imagine deep field images 13.2 Gyrs and having super cluters of clusters of galaxies forming within 500 Million yrs. Not possible in any maths calculation. But! the Big Bang theory will solve this problem by adding ad hog theories that make it so. Now go figger what science that they use to support this.

 

Hey Pluto.

Sorry to hear you've been demoted to a dwarf planet :)

 

The sun does take many billion years to fuse its fuel. However, more massive stars do so more quickly. Just like less massive stars will shine for trillions of years. The links I provided:

Making astronomical history

 

Massive Star Evolution Through the Ages

 

tell us that quite massive population III stars will burn through their fuel in only approx. 10 million years (a cosmic blink-of-the-eye). This is well-known and non-controversial.

 

This link:

 

The evolution and explosion of massive stars Woosley and Weaver

 

shows exactly how much nucleosynthesis is done in these massive (20 - 50) solar mass) stars. It further shows how much of each nuclide is ejected in its subsequent supernova.

 

Given this well founded data, it isn't hard to imagine that most of the matter in the larger galaxies has gone through two or three of these massive star cycles. Perhaps each time forming a less-massive star as theory would suggest. This would all logically happen not-many-million-years after the last scattering surface.

 

This really isn't 'ad hoc' anything. Not a patch-up job. This is all well-founded and established theory. There's nothing out-of-the-box here. We should find (after reionization) a baseline of metallicity.

 

At the very-least one could not argue that finding heavy metals after reionization is a problem with BBT.

 

No?

 

-modest

[modest]

It is also interesting to point out that the introduction of a new brand of stars (e.g., population III) is now required

 

This type of star and it's method of creation was described at least as far back as 1902 by Jeans - so what do you mean by "new brand of stars"? What is your exact objection with population III or 'first generation' stars? Do you think galaxies and black holes are all going to form without stars? There had to be stars. I don't understand your objection.

 

I think, perhaps, you are looking hard for a problem where there isn't one. Or, at least, you haven't shown where there is one yet.

 

-modest