- #1
aib
- 14
- 0
Hubble Ultra Deep Field "baby" galaxy examination
It turns out that galaxies from over 12 billion years ago are anything but small and young.
Is it possible that we got the age of the universe wrong, as it doesn't seem very likely for a mature looking galaxy, with mature stars to have formed in such a short period? Sure some people would say "hey, it's just faster formation", but a galaxy from before 12 billion years to look more mature than our own and other neighbor galaxies - it just doesn't seem likely to me. Is it possible that the universe is much older, and the big bang was more of a local event than the kick start of the whole universe? I was always amazed scientists dared to talk about the WHOLE universe, something we very well know falls beyond our observation range. What if it is way bigger and way older?
It turns out that galaxies from over 12 billion years ago are anything but small and young.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051003233710.htmScientists studying the Ultra Deep Field found this galaxy in Hubble's infrared images. They expected it to be young and small, like other known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, they found evidence the galaxy is remarkably mature and much more massive. Its stars appear to have been in place for a long time.
Is it possible that we got the age of the universe wrong, as it doesn't seem very likely for a mature looking galaxy, with mature stars to have formed in such a short period? Sure some people would say "hey, it's just faster formation", but a galaxy from before 12 billion years to look more mature than our own and other neighbor galaxies - it just doesn't seem likely to me. Is it possible that the universe is much older, and the big bang was more of a local event than the kick start of the whole universe? I was always amazed scientists dared to talk about the WHOLE universe, something we very well know falls beyond our observation range. What if it is way bigger and way older?