Furthest Galaxy, GN-z11, at Redshift of 11.1
A new record distance to a huge galaxy named GN-z11 has been observed and measured. It is dramatically farther than the previous distance holder. The constantly amazing Hubble Space telescope measured its distance spectroscopically at a Spectral line Redshift of 11.1.
“We’ve taken a major step back in time, beyond what we’d ever expected to be able to do with Hubble. We managed to look back in time to measure the distance to a galaxy when the Universe was only three percent of its current age.” – Pascal Oesch, lead paper author.
Previous to this discovery, the furthest measured galaxy, EGSY8p7, is at a redshift of “only” z=8.68.
Due to its large spectral line redshift, researchers calculate that this large (billion solar masses) galaxy is being viewed only 400 million years after Big Bang; . . . which presents a major set of headaches for Big Bang.
“It’s amazing that a galaxy so massive existed only 200 million to 300 million years after the very first stars started to form. It takes really fast growth, producing stars at a huge rate, to have formed a galaxy that is a billion solar masses so soon,” explains Garth Illingworth of the University of California, Santa Cruz and Lick Observatory, one of the paper’s co-authors.
Commentary :
Because Big Bang (LCDM) requires matter to be so smoothly distributed, it takes considerable time to create stars, and then for those stars to gather into a galaxy.
According to Big Bang the first atoms were created some 380 thousand years after universe start up, and until recently, most of us believed the first star began shining about 400 million years later. (1)
European Space Agency’s updated Big Bang Timeline showing First Light and Stars (credit BBC)
However, leading researchers European Space Agency’s PLANCK mission updated the Big Bang Timeline in 2015 by reporting the first generation of stars did not light up until some 560 million years after the Big Bang.
This new extraordinarily, unexpectedly distant galaxy, GN-z11, raises a calamitous, and likely fatal problem for Big Bang. That’s because there is no reasonable way to explain the existence of a huge, complete galaxy (not the mere starting formation of a galaxy) in the “blink of an eye.” Only ~ 400 million years after the first atoms were created. (For reference it was “only” 400 million years ago when Earth’s first creatures left the ocean and evolved into dinosaurs.)
The impossible part is that this gigantic, completely formed galaxy we can see today existed 160 million years BEFORE Big Bang says the first stars lit up !
So we’re supposed to believe it took 400 thousand years to make the first atoms, 560 million years (roughly 1,200 times as long) to make the first stars, but a galaxy existed ~30 percent earlier than the first stars; a huge, billion-solar-mass, viable, coherent galaxy existed ?
. . . Ok . . .
This also is a big problem for the “cosmic microwave background” idea because all the cosmic microwave radiation calculated as being “background” – had to have been been emitted at the same time as the light was emitted from the huge galaxy GN-z11 !
So much for “Precision cosmology.”
This appears to expose a disastrous flaw with Big Bang and that the conjecture needs, at the very least, a serious re-boot.
What do you think ?
# # #
Notes:
(1) NASA’s Old Big Bang Timeline.
Note the first stars are only forming at 400 million years (this graphic was made prior to the PLANCK results indicating the first stars didn’t light up until 560 million years). Yet at 400 million years ago this newly found GN-z11 is already a billion solar masses strong. (Credit Wikipedia + NASA/WMAP Science Team)
Hubble Space Telescope News — “Hubble breaks cosmic distance record” March 3, 2016
Preprint paper “A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at z=11.1 Measured with Hubble Space Telescope Grism Spectroscopy“by Pascal Oesch et al., March 2016
Thanks to John Kierein for alerting me to this research.
The last part of the galaxy’s name, GN-z11, as you might have guessed, reflects its redshift number, and “z” is shorthand for spectral line redshift in Cosmology.
An interesting Book putting this in perspective is available at Amazon:
The Poster below (at Amazon) is of a previous record distance galaxy.
English
I must admit that when the first deep sky images from Hubble were made I was concerned.
The static “Endless, Boundless Stable Universe” that Grote Reber and I espouse predicts that the “Perfect Cosmological Principle” should apply.
This means that the physical laws and the way the universe looks should be the same everywhere and for all time in the universe. Those first deep sky images seemed to show just blobs for the most distant galaxies. They should have been spirals and look like the nearby ones if the Perfect Cosmological Principle should apply. There shouldn’t be evolution on the large scale which this at first seemed to be, with the earlier in time galaxies looking different than today’s.
But then I was saved by NICMOS. Hubble replaced its imager with NICMOS, the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-object Spectrometer. This instrument’s deep sky imagers cleared up the situation. The distant galaxies were indeed spiral when viewed with the near IR spectra included! The galaxies were normal, but the older red stars had been red-shifted out of the observable range of the earlier instruments.
Now that we could see the older stars, the Perfect Cosmological Principal held true. In fact, the observation of these old stars in the earlier universe posed a problem for the big bang: some of them certainly had to be older than the time of the big bang.
This new observation just further confirms the Perfect Cosmological Principle. The big bang is wrong and the cosmological red shift is not Doppler.
By the way, there is a correction to the brightness of the galaxy which must be made if the redshift were Doppler (which it can’t be). A Doppler shifted light source must be dimmer than a static universe red shift. Not only should each photon be stretched out by the Doppler effect, but, by “time dilation”, the distance between each photon should also be stretched out. This should dim the galaxy because the flux of photons received is reduced, thus making it appear dimmer.
This does not seem to be the case for this bright galaxy. I give good reasons that the big bang is wrong on my website. There are interesting implications for the Compton effect as the cause of the red shift in my 1981 YouTube video “Gravity and the Red Shift“.
Whoops. the correct link to my YouTube video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywu8cVgRpwE
It should be noted that a Compton effect red shift predicts a modification of Hubble’s Law that would bring a large red shifted object closer and therefore brighter.
http://web.archive.org/web/20150124043452/http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/Hubble_latest_web.htm
Hubble Constant =62km/s/Mpc = c/Radius
Radius = 150GP meteres
Mass 2.025E52 kg
Age of universe 15.884 Gy
Redshift v = Hd= cd/R; v/c = d/R separation not expansion!
Universe Mass correction,
Mass = 2.025E53 not 2.025E52