What caused the re-ionization of our universe?

[newtonian]

See the current story on space.com:<br /><br />Hubble Lifts Fog on Early Universe<br />By Robert Roy Britt<br />Senior Science Writer<br />posted: 24 September 2004<br />06:42 am ET<br /><br />Was it something else besides the earliest massive stars, perhaps having something to do with the process that turned our universe from light blocking to translucent to transparent?<br /><br />See also Scientific American, December 2001, article entitled "The First Stars in the Universe."<br /><br /><br />For my comments on this article, see:<br /><br />http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionBloopersVSGodCreates/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1213<br /><br />(Sorry about the name of that group)<br /><br />If you want a more private conversation (not actually private, SDC has private message service here), since there are only two posting there right now- feel free to post there. <br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

No takers?<br /><br />Please be assured our IGM (intergalactic medium) was indeed reionized.<br /><br />There is a thread which has this as a tangent in the space science and astronomy section. I will link it later if no one responds here.<br /><br />In short: was it by early supermassive stars?<br /><br />In the other thread, borman introduces the possibility that early black holes may be at least partially responsible.

 

[bobw]

No takers? <br /><br />How's this? <br /><br />Please, Newtonian, tell us what the bible says about it! We're all waiting with bated breath! Feel free to use extra pages if needed! <br /><br />My guess is that it was GLORY.<br /><br />Isa 2:21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. <br /> <br />It is known that being underground will protect explorers on Mars from ionizing radiation, so surely the GLORY that the men were to hide from is what re-ionized the universe. This passage also proves that the universe could have been re-ionized several times so all our 'modern' estimates of it's age are way off. <br /><br />Am I doing good so far? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mooware]

Not for nothing Newtonian, and I'm not trying to be critical of you... But I'd venture to guess nearly all the threads you start, or are involved in, make mention of Biblical passages. And if it doesn't. It'll be along soon.<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

bobw and mooware - now you are guilty of the very spam you accuse me of. <br /><br />You are the ones who are bringing Biblical quotes into what I wish to be a purely scientific thread.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />Now, to get back to thread theme:<br /><br />Scientific American, October, 2002 in the article entitled "The Emptiest Places, pp. 56-63, explores the question of what caused the re-ionization of our universe. <br /><br />Please see this article and also the sources I referenced on my first post and try posting an answer that has some evidence for it.<br /><br />I'll help you along a little. The diagram on page 62 shows the thermal history of our universe.<br /><br />Starting at 100,000 years after the big bang with a temperature of about 10,000 degrees Kelvin, it gradually cools to about 1,000 degrees Kelvin during the period of Recombination transition through 1 million years after big bang.<br /><br />After this, the temperature lowers more rapidly to about 100 degrees Kelvin about 500 million years after big bang.<br /><br />Then, rather suddenly it spikes up rapidly during reionization transition from 500 million to 1 billion years after big bang to over 10,000 degrees Kelvin.<br /><br />Then a heating transition occurs during which galaxy clusters heat up way more than the universe average - to a startling 10 million degrees kelvin.<br />.<br />This occurs for a few hundred million years centered about 1 billion years after big bang.<br />Meanwhile the universal average stays fairly constant, and in the last few billion years lowers slowly - still about 10,000 degrees kelvin. <br />After reionization, galaxy clusters stayed close to 10 million degrees kelvin, but in the last few billion years these clusters have been heating up even more - to an astounding approximately 70 million degrees kelvin!<br /><br />My question includes this:<br /><br />Which is the cause: galaxy clusters heating the IGM or the IGM heating the clusters? Or both?<br /><br />Again, note the similar thre

 

[newtonian]

See also Scientific American, February, 1996, article entitled "Colossal Galactic Explosions," by Sylvain Veilleux, Gerald Cecil and Jonathan Bland-Hawthorn.<br /><br />The overview:<br /><br />Enormous outpourings of gas from the centers<br />of nearby galaxies may ultimately help explain<br />both star formation and the intergalactic medium<br /><br />So this is another contender for cause of re-ionization.<br /><br />Note this is similar to borman's thought in the parallel thread in SS&A.<br />Thoughts anyone?