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

Is there an Age Problem in the Mainstream Model?

  1. Oct 13, 2005 #1

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The first estimate of Hubble’s constant, 400 km/s/Mpc was too large by a factor of over five because of systematic and observational errors. This led to a ‘Hubble time’ of only 2.4 Gyr for the age of the universe, the problem was that objects within the universe, e.g. the Earth were known to be considerably older than this!
    This was known as the ‘Age Problem’.
    Today we are in an exciting period in observational cosmology as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, and other space and ground based surveys, push back the limits for observing galaxies and quasars at high z to 6< z < 7 and in future looking back to even higher z and earlier ‘times’.
    As this limit was pushed back it was expected that younger and younger objects would be seen that would reveal the galaxy and quasar-forming epoch. Often young objects are observed such as young relatively low mass star-burst galaxies. However, a surprise has been that also mature and well developed systems have been observed.
    Is it possible then that a new ‘Age problem’ exists for the standard LCDM cosmological model, which will become more acute as observations push to even high red shift and hence earlier epochs?
    What is the problem? There have been separate posts in the past, which I thought should be brought together. Let us compare some ages:
    The most extreme example of this is the Hubble ultra deep field object UDF033238.7-274839.8 aka HUDF-JD2 , a 6 x 1011Msolar galaxy at z = 6.5 when the universe was only 860 Myrs old, (age given by Ned Wright's calculator allowing for DE).
    Evidence for a Massive Post-Starburst Galaxy at z ~ 6.5
    Also we have high-z quasars with significant iron abundances, and iron is the last element to be formed in fusion processes. In particular there is: APM 08279+5255at z = 3.91 whose age is 2.1 Gyr when the universe was only 1.6 Gyrs old (according to LCDM model expansion).
    This age estimate is consistent with Cosmological implications of APM 08279+5255, an old quasar at z= 3.91 Alcaniz J.S.; Lima J.A.S.; Cunha J.V, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 340, Number 4, April 2003, pp. L39-L42(1)
    But these age estimates are not consistent with the LCDM age of the universe at z = 3.91.
    This point is emphasised by Drs. Norbert Schartel, Fred Jansen and Prof. Guenther Hasinger in their ESA web-page article Is the universe older than expected?
    There are other examples of early iron high abundances: at z = 3.104,
    The First XMM-Newton spectrum of a high redshift quasar - PKS 0537 ,
    (Oct 2000). And six quasars at z>4
    Restless quasar activity: from BeppoSAX to Chandra and XMM-Newton
    (2004)

    Furthermore there is a current debate about galaxy rotation profiles and whether they can be explained not by halo DM but a GR non-linear analysis of the rotating galactic mass (see thread new study shows Dark Matter isn't needed? Relativty explains it? )

    The present mainstream model relies on the quick self-collapse of non-interacting DM to form the potential wells into which baryonic matter can fall, which then forms the visible galaxies. However if these galactic haloes are only an artifact of inappropriate Newtonian dynamics then more time would be required for the galaxies, now seen at high z to form.

    So, although there is no panic yet, one question that does appear to be coming over the horizon is, “Is there an age problem with the Mainstream Model?”
    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 15, 2005 #2

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The major question in reconciling these mature early features is the estimation of the age of such high-z objects. The occurence of super-solar iron abundance being a particular problem. One paper that looks at this question is An old quasar in a young dark energy-dominated universe?.
    That quasar is at a red shift of 3.91, which in the concordance model yields a universe age of 1.6 Gyr., a little short of the 2Gyr required!

    The paper concludes:
    The paper suggests that the data can be reconciled if the Hubble parameter were much lower (i.e. the universe as a whole much older)
    But this would not seem to be compatible with the normal WMAP value of Ho = 71kms−1Mpc−1

    So, "Is there an age problem in the Mainstream model?"

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2005
  4. Oct 15, 2005 #3

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  5. Oct 15, 2005 #4

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, and the latter thread ended with my question:
    Which you did not answer.

    As far as I am concerned there is a real issue here, which I would like to discuss.

    As I said above
    So we wait for further observations of even more distant quasars to see which way this issue is going, if at high-z all the objects are young then there is no age problem beyond the observations already mentioned, however, if such high iron metallicity is found in even earlier objects then I think the Mainstream Model will have something to answer for.

    ST, on the basis of the present evidence how do you reconcile the APM 08279+5255 necessary value of Ho = 58 kms−1Mpc−1 with the WMAP concordance value?

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2005
  6. Oct 15, 2005 #5

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    All such concerns are addressed in the first post. No, I don't think you have a claim for anything and I'm not interested.
     
  7. Oct 15, 2005 #6
    Just wait patiently Garth, until the LBT and Webb observations show old metal-rich galaxies and massive metal-rich quasars at z~10 or so. We have seen no evolution in metallicity back to z~6.5 and if we live in a steady-state universe, there is no reason to expect to observe such evolution. If the universe is SS, there is also no need for alarm when we observe massive objects (tens of billions of solar masses) at an age of 13G years ago. In a BB model with bottom-up structure formation, it is hard to imagine how such massive objects could have formed (with super-solar metallicities) in just a few hundred million years.

    If you will Google on "universe" and "age problem" you will see that this was a very hot topic until the late 1990's, when nearly everyone drank the "accelerating expansion Kool-Aid" and dropped the subject. LBT and Webb will revive the subject - it's just a matter of time.
     
  8. Oct 15, 2005 #7

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I disagree they have not all been addressed.
    I'm not the one making the claims, I've just drawn them together and brought attention to these observations.
    Now that I do find disappointing, but not altogether surprising.

    Garth
     
  9. Oct 15, 2005 #8

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So is it agreed that further/deeper observations are required before this matter is settled?
     
  10. Oct 15, 2005 #9

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hi Phobos!
    Well yes, to settle the matter once and for all we will need deeper observations, but already there seems to be a problem in reconcilling the constraint on H0 from the supra-solar iron abundance of APM 08279+5255 and that from the 'precision cosmology' of the first year WMAP data.

    I think possible avenues to solving this problem could profitably be discussed now, if only to alert ourselves to problems in the Mainstream Model.

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2005
  11. Oct 15, 2005 #10

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For once, I agree with Turbo. If there is really an age problem in cosmology, it will become plainly obvious in short order. As we speak, there are various missions either observing or preparing to observe extremely high-redshift objects -- the volume of data will be increasing dramatically in the next 10 years. Quibbling about the low signal-to-noise observations of a few quasars and galaxies, along with various assumptions about quasar evolution (about which we know very little) and the first generation of stars (about which we know nothing) is just a waste of everyone's time. Be patient.
     
  12. Oct 16, 2005 #11

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then I agree with the three of you, as I said above "So we wait for further observations of even more distant quasars to see which way this issue is going"; but it is instructive to realise that already we have to reconcile the present observations by either modifying our stellar nucleosynthesis model or the cosmological model.


    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2005
  13. Oct 16, 2005 #12
    We might not have to wait for the Webb launch (8 LONG years from now...):mad:

    There are some problematic observations (for BB cosmology) being made right now. Here is a massive and mature galaxy found at high redshift. A star like our own sun can stay on the main sequence for perhaps 10Gy before its H is consumed. Unless our understanding of stellar evolution is 'way off, it is very difficult to understand the existence of a large population of mature stars less than 1Gy after the BB.

    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/

    Also, it appears that selection effects might have been causing us to undercount high-z galaxies. This survey found 2-6x as many galaxies at 9-12Gy look-back than previously estimated.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509628.pdf

    The survey cited above was made possible by a detector that can record the spectra of about 1000 objects simultaneously, which drastically reduces the time needed to perform such a survey. Given that it is difficult to detect high-z objects at all, it is reasonable to assume that the ones that we do see are the brightest. In short, they are the outliers and the freaks. As detector sensitivities improve, we should find more and more "normal" galaxies at high-z.
     
  14. Oct 17, 2005 #13
    Here is another paper citing an apparent overdensity of high-z galaxies. Not only are there far more galaxies than anticipated by the standard model, they are arranged in organized structures that defy the "bottom up" hierachical model.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0501/0501478.pdf

    This distribution is consistent with a steady-state universe. The farther you look back in redshift, the more volume you survey and the more galaxies you will see. The fall-off in detected galaxies at z>6 is pretty easy to contemplate, since we are near the limits of detectability and can only see the brightest galaxies. Better detectors will show us more and more galaxies.
     
  15. Oct 18, 2005 #14

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You do not need to go all the way to the SS universe, extending the early universe in years will do.

    z = 6 corresponds to an age of the universe then of 950 Myr. in the LCDM model but over 2 Gyr. in the Freely Coasting and SCC models.

    Garth
     
  16. Oct 28, 2005 #15

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not wanting to add to what's already been written (yes, let's wait for better observations), now would be a good time for all those non-mainstream folk with what they think are viable alternatives to the consensus model to get their papers with specific predictions written (and published) :smile:
     
  17. Oct 28, 2005 #16

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    It saves a lot of needless effort to run with the baton post posteri.
     
  18. Oct 28, 2005 #17

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And also tested of course.

    For SCC - this is already in hand - as I think you already know Nereid!
    Just for those who don't: The published papers and eprints are:
    1. Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'
    2. A New Self Creation Cosmology
    3. The Principles of Self Creation Cosmology and its Comparison with General Relativity
    4. Experimental tests of the New Self Creation Cosmology and a heterodox prediction for Gravity Probe B
    5. The derivation of the coupling constant in the new Self Creation Cosmology
    6. The Self Creation challenge to the cosmological concordance model
    7. Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory published in New Developments in Quantum Cosmology Research. Horizons in World Physics, Volume 247

    It is being falsified at this moment as the Gravity Probe B experiment data is being processed, wait until next year for the result. N.B. Not only is SCC being falsified but so also is GR - we await the result whatever that might be....

    SCC and GR predict the same E-W gravitomagnetic frame dragging precession
    SCC = GR = 0.0409 arcsec/yr
    But a N-S geodetic precession of:
    SCC: 5.5120 arcsec/yr
    GR: 6.6144 arcsec/yr

    Of course the result could be anything else - we wait patiently!

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  19. Jan 18, 2006 #18

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This prediction has now been corrected for the Thomas precession that affects the SCC prediction but not the GR one.

    The corrected predictions are now:
    SCC and GR predict the same E-W gravitomagnetic frame dragging precession
    SCC = GR = 0.0409 arcsec/yr
    But a N-S geodetic precession of:
    SCC: 4.4096 arcsec/yr
    GR: 6.6144 arcsec/yr

    Again we are still waiting (until early 2007?)

    Garth
     
  20. Jan 22, 2006 #19

    /0

    User Avatar

    As dense as I truly am, I think this may be on the same topic that I made my forum debut with.

    MAYBE.


    Miles
     
  21. Mar 7, 2006 #20

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Resurrecting this continuing topic: Constraints from old quasar APM 08279+-5255
    (emphasis mine.)

    Garth
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Is there an Age Problem in the Mainstream Model?
  1. Cosmic age problem ? (Replies: 1)

Loading...