Maybe I'm wrong and the recent strange observations (such as the one commented here and the ones linked below) don't stack up and are explained as fast as they appear?
Some findings are slightly surprising, but none so far have had big enough deltas to call the big bang theory "flawed". There's way too much data confirming it.
But, it is flawed -- simply because its so incomplete. There's simply too much we have absolutely no clue about and we have a lot of gaps that don't neatly add up. Our ignorance is vast. This is partly to do with our limited nature.
What we don't know about the origin of the universe far outweighs what we think we do. This won't ever stop being the case no matter how clever we may become.
Take exoplanets. According to everything we thought we knew about planetary formation by looking at our own solar system led us to believe every other star system that had planets would follow a similar configuration (rocky planets close their parent star gassy giants further away). That turned out to be spectacularly wrong. We've never seen any star systems with planetary distributions even remotely like ours.
The formation of galaxies is even more full of contradictory evidence and we only have the sketchiest picture.
Modesty is a feature of good scientists. Know-it-all attitudes get us nowhere.
You do know that flawed is not a synonym for wrong? You do also have the reading comprehension to see that 'the big bang theory is wrong' and 'there are flaws with our current understanding of the big bang theory' are in no way saying the same thing?
i suspect that you're being downvoted because people are so eager to "defend" science against religious crackpottery that they forget how big the problems are facing astrophysics. hn readers these days are a bit gung-ho in that respect, while not being that bright, frankly.
we really do have serious problems in cosmology and it really does look like some new surprising physics is needed to make sense of it all. we can't explain most of the mass of the universe. we can't even see most of it.
this is all standard, accepted wisdom in astronomy (i may not be phrasing it very well, but any/all/most astronomers admit that things are really messed up at the moment - and this is from direct knowledge, as i have a phd in astronomy, although i know longer work in it, and my partner is an astronomy prof doing active research). so much that i would be more inclined to downvote you because what you're saying is not new and interesting, but what everyone already thinks...!
having said that, the general idea of a "big bang" at a very broad level - something dynamic and changing, as opposed to the old "steady state" - seems reasonably secure. although it could easily become cyclical or chaotic or...
Galaxy formation is not part of the big bang theory. That we can't predict or model the behaviour of galaxies does not indicate that the big bang theory is flawed, any more than our inability to predict or model turbulent fluid flows indicates that quantum mechanics is flawed (and the reasons for both issues are quite similar).
I wouldn't downvote you, but (purely because you asked) you did trigger my noise filter. Not a big deal, but it sounds like you're interested in how to avoid doing that, so here goes.
The reason you set off my noise filter is that "there is growing body of clues indicating that our current understanding of [something] is flawed" makes it sound like you're way overstating your competence in the field. I mean, if you were an expert in the field, and you said (1) I'm familiar with what big bang theory is and why we believe it, and (2) there are enough observations that seem inconsistent with the theory that I'm starting to think it has basic flaws, then that would be really interesting, especially if you went into detail.
But if you're not an expert, reading a couple of popular science articles about particular observations that haven't been explained yet tells you absolutely nothing about whether there's a "growing" body of clues, or whether there are any clues at all, that the big bang theory is flawed. It just tells you that there are some observations that we can't explain yet. It's like (no offense) a creationist saying "there is a growing body of clues that our current understanding of evolution is flawed," when all they really mean is that they've read a few articles about particular fossil evidence that isn't explained yet.
So basically I would encourage you to write something off the bat more like your follow-up. Say, "I've seen a number of articles about strange observations like this one that don't fit in with our idea of how the universe was formed. Does that indicate actual problems with the theory, or does it just take time to figure out how new observations fit in?" And then I think people would upvote you instead of downvote you. Hope this helps.
The article itself doesn't imply that it "shouldn't" exist, just that it's likely due to a combination of factors that would make such galaxies rare. Not open-access unfortunately, but the abstract is actually a reasonable summary: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature1...
[although i think from the way you use "keep" you've misunderstood slightly what's happening here. "old" in this article means that it is a long way away and so is observed as it was a long time ago (light takes time to travel from the galaxy to our telescope) and so the galaxy we are seeing is actually [as it was when it was] new. in general, it is expected that galaxies start off as amorphous blobs and (some) become spiral-like as they get older (simplifying hugely). the problem here is that this galaxy [as we see it] is so new (which the article calls "old"!) that it hasn't had time to become such a nice-looking spiral. so it's not "keeping form" as much as "achieving form too early".]
anyway, back to the question. you can divide astronomy into two halves. there's the serendipitous "interesting object" work, like this paper, and then there's the "survey" work. the two are complementary - detailed studies turn up new ideas but can be very misleading (due to chance - this is a good example, where it seems that something looks "mature" simply because it has been disrupted in a way that, accidentally, makes it look like something it is not). in contrast, surveys give us reliable knowledge of how things work "on average", so are more reliable, but take more time and are very "broad brush" (and usually rely on the earlier detailed work for a "focus").
my guess is that a terra-forming (well, galaxy forming) civilization could mislead the former, but not the latter. this is because the universe is very big :o) - the aliens would need time travel and / or faster than light travel (arguably the same thing and generally considered unlikely) in order to affect large volumes of the observable universe. particularly if they took a reasonable time to evolve (you could argue that galaxies need to form and "settle down" before things are stable enough for live to evolve to such a level).
actually, the final argument isn't so much about galaxies forming. for a civilisation to have formed early enough to affect all of the observable universe without time/ftl travel i think that they would have to exist before atoms existed (ie when the universe was still a primordial "plasma", during "inflation", assuming, of course, current models, although this general constraint is fairly strong, given the microwave background uniformity, although(!) see below).
now you can argue that the idea that atoms are necessary for life is an anthropomorphic bias :o) but really the problem is that very little of anything had structure at that point. and for life i think you do need some kind of order.
It has definitely been observed that activity by alien intelligence could affect our observations. For example, one astronomer observed that a red giant strong in the infrared and a Dyson Sphere around something like our sun would look pretty similar from many lightyears away.
However, one of the reasons that I tend to believe that we are largely or entirely alone is that there doesn't seem to be anything out there that requires or even really suggests intelligence as an explanation.
Wish they would just show the real pictures in the article rather than an artists depiction, kind of gives an unreasonable expectation of how well we can see a galaxy 10 billion light years distant.
Yeah, I saw the ones in the paper, just commenting on the impression others will get. Given the big picture at the top on only a note at the bottom of the article that it is an artists impression.
You can run simulations similar to what's described in the article and really get an intuitive understanding of how these galaxies form and change on a timescale of millions or billions of years.
I know nothing about formal astrophysics but could play with that game for hours (and have). Also kind of makes you realize that studying what's out there is somewhat akin to studying the bubbles that form in a bubble bath -- lots and lots (and lots) of randomness, but still so much to learn...
28 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 57.7 ms ] threadhttp://www.world-science.net/othernews/101125_galaxies.htm http://www.universetoday.com/10974/distant-galaxy-is-too-mas... http://lsiblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/some-galaxies-look-too-o...
Or maybe theory of how galaxies form is not the part of big bang theory?
Or maybe I just got downvoted because I triggered some peoples cracpot-filter by using "big bang" and "flawed" in the same sentence?
Some findings are slightly surprising, but none so far have had big enough deltas to call the big bang theory "flawed". There's way too much data confirming it.
What we don't know about the origin of the universe far outweighs what we think we do. This won't ever stop being the case no matter how clever we may become.
Take exoplanets. According to everything we thought we knew about planetary formation by looking at our own solar system led us to believe every other star system that had planets would follow a similar configuration (rocky planets close their parent star gassy giants further away). That turned out to be spectacularly wrong. We've never seen any star systems with planetary distributions even remotely like ours.
The formation of galaxies is even more full of contradictory evidence and we only have the sketchiest picture.
Modesty is a feature of good scientists. Know-it-all attitudes get us nowhere.
we really do have serious problems in cosmology and it really does look like some new surprising physics is needed to make sense of it all. we can't explain most of the mass of the universe. we can't even see most of it.
this is all standard, accepted wisdom in astronomy (i may not be phrasing it very well, but any/all/most astronomers admit that things are really messed up at the moment - and this is from direct knowledge, as i have a phd in astronomy, although i know longer work in it, and my partner is an astronomy prof doing active research). so much that i would be more inclined to downvote you because what you're saying is not new and interesting, but what everyone already thinks...!
having said that, the general idea of a "big bang" at a very broad level - something dynamic and changing, as opposed to the old "steady state" - seems reasonably secure. although it could easily become cyclical or chaotic or...
The reason you set off my noise filter is that "there is growing body of clues indicating that our current understanding of [something] is flawed" makes it sound like you're way overstating your competence in the field. I mean, if you were an expert in the field, and you said (1) I'm familiar with what big bang theory is and why we believe it, and (2) there are enough observations that seem inconsistent with the theory that I'm starting to think it has basic flaws, then that would be really interesting, especially if you went into detail.
But if you're not an expert, reading a couple of popular science articles about particular observations that haven't been explained yet tells you absolutely nothing about whether there's a "growing" body of clues, or whether there are any clues at all, that the big bang theory is flawed. It just tells you that there are some observations that we can't explain yet. It's like (no offense) a creationist saying "there is a growing body of clues that our current understanding of evolution is flawed," when all they really mean is that they've read a few articles about particular fossil evidence that isn't explained yet.
So basically I would encourage you to write something off the bat more like your follow-up. Say, "I've seen a number of articles about strange observations like this one that don't fit in with our idea of how the universe was formed. Does that indicate actual problems with the theory, or does it just take time to figure out how new observations fit in?" And then I think people would upvote you instead of downvote you. Hope this helps.
[although i think from the way you use "keep" you've misunderstood slightly what's happening here. "old" in this article means that it is a long way away and so is observed as it was a long time ago (light takes time to travel from the galaxy to our telescope) and so the galaxy we are seeing is actually [as it was when it was] new. in general, it is expected that galaxies start off as amorphous blobs and (some) become spiral-like as they get older (simplifying hugely). the problem here is that this galaxy [as we see it] is so new (which the article calls "old"!) that it hasn't had time to become such a nice-looking spiral. so it's not "keeping form" as much as "achieving form too early".]
anyway, back to the question. you can divide astronomy into two halves. there's the serendipitous "interesting object" work, like this paper, and then there's the "survey" work. the two are complementary - detailed studies turn up new ideas but can be very misleading (due to chance - this is a good example, where it seems that something looks "mature" simply because it has been disrupted in a way that, accidentally, makes it look like something it is not). in contrast, surveys give us reliable knowledge of how things work "on average", so are more reliable, but take more time and are very "broad brush" (and usually rely on the earlier detailed work for a "focus").
my guess is that a terra-forming (well, galaxy forming) civilization could mislead the former, but not the latter. this is because the universe is very big :o) - the aliens would need time travel and / or faster than light travel (arguably the same thing and generally considered unlikely) in order to affect large volumes of the observable universe. particularly if they took a reasonable time to evolve (you could argue that galaxies need to form and "settle down" before things are stable enough for live to evolve to such a level).
now you can argue that the idea that atoms are necessary for life is an anthropomorphic bias :o) but really the problem is that very little of anything had structure at that point. and for life i think you do need some kind of order.
this is related to why the microwave background result(s?) with large-scale anisotropies was(were?) so weird (and, if i understand right, have since been discounted) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_rad...
Fun link on that topic: http://home.fnal.gov/~carrigan/infrared_astronomy/Dyson_sphe...
However, one of the reasons that I tend to believe that we are largely or entirely alone is that there doesn't seem to be anything out there that requires or even really suggests intelligence as an explanation.
http://universesandbox.com/
You can run simulations similar to what's described in the article and really get an intuitive understanding of how these galaxies form and change on a timescale of millions or billions of years.
I know nothing about formal astrophysics but could play with that game for hours (and have). Also kind of makes you realize that studying what's out there is somewhat akin to studying the bubbles that form in a bubble bath -- lots and lots (and lots) of randomness, but still so much to learn...
If I understood, the galaxy is 10 billion light years away? Is that correct?