Measuring the age of a galaxy
- Thread starter RobbyQbit
- Start date
A lot of people reading your question and no one putting forward an answer. Surprises me so I will take a crack at an answer. Neither of your suggestions work for age, I will give an example very close to the Milky Way, the Andromeda Galaxy. It doesn't have long to live as a galaxy once the Milky Way eats it for lunch. It is within a few billion years of its end date. And the Milky Way will have changed in a big way from the encounter and its dining on another, similar but weaker, galaxy than it is. How old will the Milky Way, as a galaxy, be after the collision, merger, and absorption? Its age will be the length of time it took to take care of business and be on its way through the universe once more as a brand new, even larger galaxy. It may live long enough to reach a maximum weight in the universe and simply divide. Some observer disbelieving in division may think they are observing yet another merger when in fact the opposite will be occurring . . . a great mass dividing (a local conservation of mass and energy always being in force).
And, as I see these things, that is the way it works, galaxies always coming into being from the cloud Horizon, going away to piecemeal bits leftover (Andromeda in a few billion years), or simply being in turnover, in change (the Milky Way in that same few billion years) . . . or the core black hole of a dead galaxy that didn't make it otherwise, that won't divide out anti-gravitationally, swallowing itself, and everything susceptible to it, whole from horizon inward, essentially imploding / exploding to the cloud Horizon (whatever bits left over possibly adhering, like dark matter, to any nearby galaxies passing by.
There is a form of absolute age, once-upon-a-time galaxy matter that reaches absolute zero of cold, freezes still absolutely, and in that instant of having reached the otherwise impossibility of absolute zero, instantaneously explodes (self-similar to, or in fact being, a matter / antimatter explosion).
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Is the cloud horizon the same as cosmological horizon ?
A conditional yes. The "cosmological horizon" is about 14 billion light years from every center-0-point in the universe . . . observable and unobservable. Every single point! That is a lot of horizon . . . and universal . . . a cloud horizon, a quantum cloud, uniformly extending over the entire universe since every single point in the universe is dead center-o-point. "It is and it isn't at the same time." You are in it, and you aren't in it, at the same time.
How does it feel to be in the moment of beginning (0-point) and not in the moment of beginning (0-point, 14 billion years from 0-point) at the same time? How does your quantum entanglement in and of horizons feel?
Last edited:
I keep wanting to do a solitary wave function, as being a Schrodinger wave function, here, a soliton or warp spacetime bubble description. Erase the galaxies, as the galaxies, from the picture and leave the soliton bulges (warp bubbles) in spacetime where they are. Add, subtract, merge, divide, the bubble of the universe will not permit these constituents any more mass-energy than to divide into units of unity (and null unity), including the universe itself dividing out and/or into two or more universes, Relative Giant and/or Hawking Lilliputian, all in one infinite / infinitesimal "at the same time." An absolutely closed open system. A wide-open closed system.
It has taken me a lifetime to realize the universe -- rising to the Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe -- can and does deal in both materialism and immaterialism (holography) at the same time . . . interchangeably interlocking. Quantum mechanics has shown us that holograms in the microcosm, therefore, too, in the macrocosm, can get almighty real.
It has taken me a lifetime to realize the universe -- rising to the Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe -- can and does deal in both materialism and immaterialism (holography) at the same time . . . interchangeably interlocking. Quantum mechanics has shown us that holograms in the microcosm, therefore, too, in the macrocosm, can get almighty real.
Thanks. Can JWST actually detect planets given that they don't emit light as does the star it is orbiting or are planets detected or is it through unexpected gravitational detection knowing there is a mass (planet) there ?
Some heavy stuff there for me to get my head around but interesting.
I still find it difficult to comprehend how it all started i.e the Big-Bang. I always visualised it as an event in the centre of a sphere of space containing aging expanding galaxies.
But should I visualise it as like switching on a Christmas tree in terms of galaxies coming into existence and the randomness of it all (post dark age)?
Yes, JWST sees in the infrared and can directly image planets. First reported in Sept 2022.
Good question. Consider this report on JD1 galaxy with redshift of 9.79.
Astrophysicists confirm the faintest galaxy ever seen in the early universe
An international research team led by UCLA astrophysicists has confirmed the existence of the faintest galaxy ever seen in the early universe. The galaxy, called JD1, is one of the most distant identified to date, and it is typical of the kinds of galaxies that burned through the fog of hydrogen...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05994-w, The nature of an ultra-faint galaxy in the cosmic dark ages seen with JWST
"...Here we report the spectroscopic confirmation of this very low luminosity (≈0.05 L*) galaxy at z = 9.79, observed 480 Myr after the Big Bang,.."
How do folks know that JD1 formed 480 Myr after the Big Bang event? You can use cosmology calculators today available and find the expanding universe model answers like https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html or https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php
RobbyQBit,
Correct as Bill and Rod are relatively speaking, you should "visualize it" as happening right now; as being a vortex or string ring that comes round into itself to distant 0-point, and center-0-point (ultimately the same horizon in two places at once) -- as, "Spooky action at a distance" (Albert Einstein) . . . ponderously, the Planck and Big Bang and THE (Black) Hole (collapsed constant (cosmological constant (/\)) Horizon, both here now, and there then, all at once in an eternal monopole moment, or 0-point (portal).
Bill and Rod -- among others -- will give you, correctly (there is no way I'm going to dispute astronomy and relativity as astronomy and relativity), what is observed astronomically in one dimensionality of universe, while I delve into quite another as I see it to be, per Einstein later after Relativity and per Stephen Hawking -- among others -- in observations, projections, and derived theories much later after Relativity.
Think about -- consider -- this as you go about trying to wrap your head around it, "The map is not the territory!"
-----------------------
"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- A. Canon Doyle, 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet'.
Correct as Bill and Rod are relatively speaking, you should "visualize it" as happening right now; as being a vortex or string ring that comes round into itself to distant 0-point, and center-0-point (ultimately the same horizon in two places at once) -- as, "Spooky action at a distance" (Albert Einstein) . . . ponderously, the Planck and Big Bang and THE (Black) Hole (collapsed constant (cosmological constant (/\)) Horizon, both here now, and there then, all at once in an eternal monopole moment, or 0-point (portal).
Bill and Rod -- among others -- will give you, correctly (there is no way I'm going to dispute astronomy and relativity as astronomy and relativity), what is observed astronomically in one dimensionality of universe, while I delve into quite another as I see it to be, per Einstein later after Relativity and per Stephen Hawking -- among others -- in observations, projections, and derived theories much later after Relativity.
Think about -- consider -- this as you go about trying to wrap your head around it, "The map is not the territory!"
-----------------------
"From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...." -- A. Canon Doyle, 'Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet'.
Last edited:
Atlan0101, https://forums.space.com/threads/see-mars-buzz-the-dense-stars-of-the-beehive-cluster-tonight.61645/
"...what is observed astronomically in one dimensionality of universe, while I delve into quite another as I see it to be, per Einstein later after Relativity and per Stephen Hawking -- among others -- in observations, projections, and derived theories much later after Relativity."
Atlan0101, that is a good here
What I observed using my telescope in the report on Mars and the Beehive cluster, I think was real or at least it looked good to see
That's incredible. I find it hard to think that there are no other life forms out there. Just on a probabilistic basis Universe x Galaxies x Stars x Planets. What are your thoughts?Yes, JWST sees in the infrared and can directly image planets. First reported in Sept 2022.
That's a great article. I'm still reading your other links. What do you think the next major discovery will be from JWST. It's like the 3rd eyeGood question. Consider this report on JD1 galaxy with redshift of 9.79.
Astrophysicists confirm the faintest galaxy ever seen in the early universe
An international research team led by UCLA astrophysicists has confirmed the existence of the faintest galaxy ever seen in the early universe. The galaxy, called JD1, is one of the most distant identified to date, and it is typical of the kinds of galaxies that burned through the fog of hydrogen...phys.org
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05994-w, The nature of an ultra-faint galaxy in the cosmic dark ages seen with JWST
"...Here we report the spectroscopic confirmation of this very low luminosity (≈0.05 L*) galaxy at z = 9.79, observed 480 Myr after the Big Bang,.."
How do folks know that JD1 formed 480 Myr after the Big Bang event? You can use cosmology calculators today available and find the expanding universe model answers like https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html or https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php
I think there are probably countless other intelligent civilizations out there. The distances are simply too great to allow travel or communication. Detection via spectroscopy is likely our only hope of detection. Detection of chlorophyll would indicate life, any of the halogen refrigerants would indicate an industrial society.
There are a million claims of visitation by ET but "claims" mean nothing and a million times nothing is still nothing.
There are a million claims of visitation by ET but "claims" mean nothing and a million times nothing is still nothing.
The answer is no! because it isn't a communications device. It is one and the same thing, like a particle or the starship Enterprise, just existing in two or more different places at one and the same time.
My uncle Tony (whose mass and size is unknown) told me he was in Waitrose but my auntie Sandra said he was in Marks & Spencer. To me, he was in both stores at the same time. I then observed him walking out of Marks & Spencer wearing a dress and high heels. It was at that point the probability wave function collapsed.
That is a neat trick for your Uncle Tony to be able to do.
In any case, using quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is impossible. This is not because technology is not advanced far enough yet, but because it is impossible as a matter of principle.
This Wikipedia article mentions a few hypothetical loopholes, but holds out little hope that any one of them could be real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Nonetheless, as a plot device in science fiction this is very useful. As far as I can tell, it was the only scientific impossibility in Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem novels (as opposed to fanciful futuristic technologies that cannot be ruled out yet). Without it, the entire premise of the novels would have fallen apart.
In any case, using quantum entanglement for faster-than-light communication is impossible. This is not because technology is not advanced far enough yet, but because it is impossible as a matter of principle.
This Wikipedia article mentions a few hypothetical loopholes, but holds out little hope that any one of them could be real: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
Nonetheless, as a plot device in science fiction this is very useful. As far as I can tell, it was the only scientific impossibility in Cixin Liu's Three Body Problem novels (as opposed to fanciful futuristic technologies that cannot be ruled out yet). Without it, the entire premise of the novels would have fallen apart.
Galaxy age.... The powerful arguments from BBT (Big Bang Theory) gives us a universe that, after 380,000 years, was filled with gas (about 9 parts hydrogen and 1 part helium, by number). But unlike a water-like ocean, it was an ocean of gas that had regions that were slightly higher in density, which caused a massive regions to eventually collapse. The MW, before it was the MW, would have likely been in one of those regions.
The collapse would first produce massive stars by the thousands here and the millions there. Massive stars would have produced the heavier elements that became thrown out by these stars at incredible speeds, which allowed these elements to mingle with all that H and He gas surrounding them. As the stars grouped together, the galaxies would grow and many would become spiral galaxies with their noticeable arms.
Over time, nearby galaxies would collide with other galaxies causing them to become larger and larger. The MW is today becoming larger as, IIRC, two dwarf galaxies are colliding with it now, though at such a distance it wasn't noticed until more recently.
The JWST is designed to help us see these earliest galaxies. Computer models vary since models require exacting initial conditions to either be known or assumed. So the models that favored formations in, say, the first 200 million years, are doing better, no doubt, than those that required more than 300 million years due to some of the recent findings of the JWST.
The big surprise would be if the JWST would see something that the BBT cannot explain, even with tweaking it.
Quantum entanglement.... The problem, so far, with using it for communication is that once you force the collapse of one then the entangled partner is not longer entangled. Only when one is free to collapse on its own will the other behave properly. If some genius figures out a way to fool one to collapse freely in a determined way, then communication would be possible. At least that's my limited understanding of it.
The collapse would first produce massive stars by the thousands here and the millions there. Massive stars would have produced the heavier elements that became thrown out by these stars at incredible speeds, which allowed these elements to mingle with all that H and He gas surrounding them. As the stars grouped together, the galaxies would grow and many would become spiral galaxies with their noticeable arms.
Over time, nearby galaxies would collide with other galaxies causing them to become larger and larger. The MW is today becoming larger as, IIRC, two dwarf galaxies are colliding with it now, though at such a distance it wasn't noticed until more recently.
The JWST is designed to help us see these earliest galaxies. Computer models vary since models require exacting initial conditions to either be known or assumed. So the models that favored formations in, say, the first 200 million years, are doing better, no doubt, than those that required more than 300 million years due to some of the recent findings of the JWST.
The big surprise would be if the JWST would see something that the BBT cannot explain, even with tweaking it.
Quantum entanglement.... The problem, so far, with using it for communication is that once you force the collapse of one then the entangled partner is not longer entangled. Only when one is free to collapse on its own will the other behave properly. If some genius figures out a way to fool one to collapse freely in a determined way, then communication would be possible. At least that's my limited understanding of it.
The communications device, via quantum entanglement, is not the impossibility of the same thing being communicated actually existing in two or more places at exactly the same time. What scientists are actually seeking is a single wormhole of, and in, two entangled points separated in spacetime. Communication such as a signal would not pass point to point, but a traveler could pass, teleport, point (portal) to point (portal). It's a variation of, on, the principle of uncertainty concerning position and velocity, knowing both, if you know position is existing not as one point but two or more points and you know where those multiple points, multiple portals, are . . . that point in more than one place is, being a portal, a tunnel, a wormhole (microcosmic and macrocosmic. 0-point portals entangled that would drive Einstein's observer, his observers, crazy trying to observe because there will not be any observable tunnel between the points (the tunnel being within the entangled points), just the object being observed -- if at all possible of observation -- to be in more than one place at exactly, or almost exactly, the same time without any seeming linkage between.
The starship Enterprise, within its warp spacetime bubble, its soliton, could then, possibly, span not only multiple stars at once but multiple galaxies at once without actually having flown over any "fly over" country or running into any intervening objects (like a neutrino passing through the Earth as if the Earth wasn't even here to pass through).
Don't dismiss the possibility out of hand, because some scientists, rightly so as far as I am concerned, realize it is the only way, really, we can walk across a room, or even move, and all the universes that we are made of, and that we are a part of, move (pass through).
The starship Enterprise, within its warp spacetime bubble, its soliton, could then, possibly, span not only multiple stars at once but multiple galaxies at once without actually having flown over any "fly over" country or running into any intervening objects (like a neutrino passing through the Earth as if the Earth wasn't even here to pass through).
Don't dismiss the possibility out of hand, because some scientists, rightly so as far as I am concerned, realize it is the only way, really, we can walk across a room, or even move, and all the universes that we are made of, and that we are a part of, move (pass through).
Last edited:
Thanks. I'm confused as to how they can entangle two electrons for example. I read that they split the electron, but I don't believe you can as it doesn't consist of anything other than charge/mass and properties like spin. I cannot fathom how they create electron pairs
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
The US is now at risk of losing to China in the race to send people back to the Moon’s surface
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 12
-
NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab laying off 5% of its workforce
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
All astronauts still in good health on ISS, NASA flight surgeon says amid new tabloid rumors
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram