Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Doubts about the z = 10 galaxy of Roser Pello

  1. Jul 7, 2004 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    several months back some PF people were discussing
    the finding of a z = 10 galaxy by a French team led by
    Roser Pello

    Now three Anglo-Saxons at the Imperial College have
    reluctantly expressed doubts: they have tried to find the
    reported Lyman Alpha line and did not see it.

    S. J. Weatherley, S. J. Warren, T. S. R. Babbedge
    Reanalysis of the spectrum of the z=10 galaxy
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407150

    If one sets aside the finding of Pello's group, then I suppose
    the highest redshift observed for a galaxy or equally well a quasar
    would be roughly 6.5.
    does someone know what the current maximum would be, not
    counting the one z = 10?

    I am still hoping that Pello is right.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2004 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    z=6.5 is the uncontested observed leader, last I heard. z=10 is a bit uncomfortable. z=8 is closer to the theoretical limit, as I recall.

    New and Improved.

    In February 2004, HST and Keck found a galaxy with a redshift of at least 6.6 and possibly as high as 7.0 near the cluster Abell 2218.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-02-15-farthest-galaxy_x.htm

    In March 2004, NASA reseased HST images of galaxies thought to have originated between 400 and 800 million years after BB. Redshifts estimated to be as high as Z=12. [I havent found confirmation of actual measured redshifts, so it appears 7.0 is still the 'official' champ for now.
    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2004
  4. Jul 10, 2004 #3

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    I was trying to figure out where I got the notion of z=8 is an observational llimit. I have this maddening tendency to remember obscure things but not where they came from. After revisting just about every web site I've been to for the past couple months, I got lucky and found it.

    http://astrophysics.phys.cmu.edu/~jbp/past6.pdf

    z~8 is well hidden in this very interesting paper. I assumed the authors were ascribing z~8 as a limit to optically detectable ionization sources [e.g. galaxies].
     
  5. Jul 18, 2004 #4
  6. Jul 18, 2004 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Interesting paper, thanks for the post meteor.
     
  7. Jul 21, 2004 #6
    As a sidenote, this recent discovered galaxy with z=6.54, I think that is actually the third most distant known object, after the protogalaxy with z=10 of R. Pello and the galaxy with z=7 discovered in the first half of 2004
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0407409
     
  8. Jul 22, 2004 #7

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    When the Large Binocular Telescope comes on line, it will not only have tremendous light-gathering power, but with the adaptive optics and the separation of the primary mirrors, it will have a huge advantage in resolution over other ground-based and orbiting telescopes. It will be hampered by the absorption of some wavelengths by the atmosphere, but it's resolution will revolutionize observational astronomy. I predict that it will be used to discover faint objects so heavily redshifted that (if redshift = cosmological distance) they will grossly violate the best-guess 13.7Gy Big-Bang envelope. When this happens, we should be prepared for a messy backlash. It should be interesting times, (in the sense of the old Chinese curse).
     
  9. Jul 22, 2004 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    There is no upper limit for the value of z. At 13.7 Gy, the value of z approaches infinity. The current 'best guess' observational limit is z ~ 1000 [the universe is opaque much beyond that]. Aside from the CMB [possibly], it is highly unlikely we will ever see anything near that. It is even more improbable we will observe objects with z values that exceed infinity.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2004
  10. Jul 23, 2004 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The problem arises not simply when an object with high z is observed. The problems arise when objects are observed with sufficiently high z to make it unlikely that they could have formed within the 13.7Gy (with our current heirarchical model of galaxy formation and our current understanding of redshift). That is why finding a large luminous galaxy with z~10 could be troubling. Pello claims that the team that failed to confirm the redshift failed to analyze the data properly and that the high redshift is confirmable with the right techniques. We'll see...
     
  11. Nov 11, 2004 #10
    Although a galaxy a z=10 has important implications, this 'detection' is near-IR spectrsocopy, which is very difficult to reduce correctly due noise issues etc. You might be interested in these two papers (now both peer-reviewed and published/in press) which both fail to confirm any detection of the z=10 galaxy.
    A reanalysis of Pello's data: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407150
    Indepedent observations: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409485
     
  12. Nov 11, 2004 #11

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The link seems to be broken.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Doubts about the z = 10 galaxy of Roser Pello
  1. Z=10 galaxy (Replies: 17)

  2. A probable galaxy at z=7 (Replies: 16)

Loading...