Massive galaxy cluster could upend theory of universe evolut

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of a newly discovered massive galaxy cluster on theories of universe evolution, particularly in relation to the Big Bang and the age of the universe. Participants explore the significance of the cluster's mass and age, and whether it presents challenges to existing cosmological models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the implications of the massive galaxy cluster being well-defined shortly after the Big Bang, questioning if it indicates a problem with current cosmological models.
  • Others note that the findings are unsubstantiated, suggesting caution in interpreting the results.
  • A participant references previous discussions about an "Age Problem" in the mainstream model, indicating that this issue has recurred over time.
  • There is confusion regarding the age of the cluster, with different sources citing 3.3 billion years and 0.8 billion years, leading to speculation about the timeline of its formation.
  • One participant argues that the discovery does not create significant tension with the WMAP-7 CDM cosmology, suggesting that the cluster's formation aligns with the age of the universe.
  • Concerns are raised about the time required for elements like iron to be synthesized and distributed in the inter-cluster medium, questioning the timeline of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the galaxy cluster's discovery and its compatibility with existing cosmological theories.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of age and mass in relation to the cluster, as well as the assumptions underlying the interpretations of the findings. The discussion highlights the complexity of reconciling observational data with theoretical models.

Space news on Phys.org
It's an admittedly [by the researchers themselves] unsubstantiated finding.
 
Last edited:


According to the video, the cluster is 3.3 billion years old as we see it today

And super clusters are up to 1000 trillion solar masses

I don't understand what is so uniquely out of the ordinary
 
TEFLing said:
According to the video, the cluster is 3.3 billion years old as we see it today

And super clusters are up to 1000 trillion solar masses

I don't understand what is so uniquely out of the ordinary
The problem of explaining a 4 x 10^14 Solar Mass cluster forming only 800 million years after BB.

An age problem?

Garth
 
The article states 0.8 Gyr

The video states 3.3 Gyr

Which is it?

Perhaps the cluster formed about 2.5 Gyr after the big bang...

And evolved for another 0.8 Gyr...

Into the way we see it on the sky today?
 
Garth said:
The problem of explaining a 4 x 10^14 Solar Mass cluster forming only 800 million years after BB.

An age problem?

Garth
My bad - an age problem? No.
From the arXiv paper Chandra deep observation of XDCP J0044.0-2033, a massive galaxy cluster at z>1.5
Given its mass and the XDCP survey volume, XDCP J0044.0-2033 does not create significant tension with the WMAP-7 CDM cosmology.

The super-cluster is seen as it was 9.6Gyr ago. It was then 0.8Gyr old, so it formed 3.3Gyr after BB, 9.6+0.8+3.3=13.7, the age of the universe.

Note there was a high density of Intercluster medium (ICM) which had a total mass of (1.48±0.20)×1013M⊙ i.e. roughly 10% of the mass of the clusters in that central region with an iron abundance of ZFe = 0.41(+0.29−0.26) ZFe⊙ (nearly half Solar abundance)

As iron is the last element to be synthesised by nuclear fusion in stellar cores there may be a question of whether there had been enough time for this to be produced and then scattered into the inter-cluster medium.Garth
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K