Is there an Age Problem in the Mainstream Model?

[Garth]

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 10¹¹M_solar 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

If the high-redshift interpretation is correct, this object would be an example of a galaxy that formed by a process strongly resembling traditional models of monolithic collapse, in a way which a very large mass of stars formed within a remarkably short period of time, at very high redshift.

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 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/mnr/2003/00000340/00000004/art00002 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)

The existence of old high-redshift objects provides an important tool for constraining the expanding age of the Universe and the formation epoch of the first objects. In a recent paper, Hasinger, Schartel & Komossa reported the discovery of the quasar APM 08279 + 5255 at redshift z= 3.91 with an extremely high iron abundance, and estimated age of 2–3 Gyr.

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?

One possible explanation is that something is wrong with the way astronomers measure the age of objects in the Universe. The almost-holy red shift-distance-age conversion would therefore be wrong. Fred Jansen, ESA's project scientist for XMM-Newton, explains that this would mean rewriting the textbooks. "If you study the evolution of the Universe, one of the basic rules is that we can tie redshift to age. One distinct possibility to explain these observations is that, at the redshift we are looking at, the Universe is older than we think."

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 [/URL],
(Oct 2000). And six quasars at z>4
http://www.sron.nl/saxsymp/papers/vignali.ps
(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

 

[Garth]

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 astro-ph/0504031]An old quasar in a young dark energy-dominated universe?[/URL].

In the detailed chemodynamical modelling, the iron enrichment defines three relevant time scales: (i) ~ 0.3 Gyr for the central region of the galaxy housing the quasar to reach a solar iron abundance; (ii) ~ 1 Gyr for the Fe/O abundance ratio to reach the solar value; (iii) ~ 2 Gyr for a highly suprasolar Fe/O abundance ratio (Fe/O=2.5, suggested by the quasar APM 08279+5255).

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:

As widely known, the determination of the total age of the universe (the expanding time from the big-bang to z = 0) has been since the early thirties one of the major questions as well as a real source of progress for cosmology. Similarly, the age estimates of old high redshift objects may play a prominent role to discriminate among the existing dark energy or brane world models by constraining the basic cosmological parameters.

As we have seen (Figures 2 and 3), assuming t_g = 2.1 Gyr. for APM 08279+5255, for the current accepted values of m, the main class of world models (dark energy or brane inspired universes) cannot accommodate the existence of this object.

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)

Note that even in this case, the unique way to make some scenarios compatible with the estimated age for the APM 0879+5255 is admitting a value for the Hubble parameter as low as H_o = 58kms⁻¹Mpc⁻¹ (Sandage 2002).

But this would not seem to be compatible with the normal WMAP value of H_o = 71kms⁻¹Mpc⁻¹

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

Garth

 

[SpaceTiger]

This issue has been addressed ad nauseam in various other threads, including one that was locked. My responses can be found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=85918"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88102&highlight=mainstream"

 

[Garth]

This issue has been addressed ad nauseam in various other threads, including one that was locked. My responses can be found here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=85918"
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=88102&highlight=mainstream"

Yes, and the latter thread ended with my question:

Although the ages of these quasars at those high red shifts have not been determined, or at least published, they do have substantial iron abundance at an early cosmological age, therefore it does seem that there may indeed be a “statistical prevalence of this effect."

SpaceTiger, are you interested?

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

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?

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 H_o = 58 kms⁻¹Mpc⁻¹ with the WMAP concordance value?

Garth

 

[SpaceTiger]

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

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.

 

[Turbot]

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.

 

[Garth]

All such concerns are addressed in the first post.

I disagree they have not all been addressed.

No, I don't think you have a claim for anything

I'm not the one making the claims, I've just drawn them together and brought attention to these observations.

and I'm not interested.

Now that I do find disappointing, but not altogether surprising.

Garth

 

[Phobos]

So is it agreed that further/deeper observations are required before this matter is settled?

 

[Garth]

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

 

[SpaceTiger]

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.

 

[Garth]

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 realize that already we have to reconcile the present observations by either modifying our stellar nucleosynthesis model or the cosmological model.


Garth

 

[Turbot]

We might not have to wait for the Webb launch (8 LONG years from now...)

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/

"It made about eight times more mass in stars than are found in our own Milky Way today, and then, just as suddenly, it stopped forming new stars. It appears to have grown old prematurely."

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.

 

[Turbot]

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.

 

[Garth]

This distribution is consistent with a steady-state universe.

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

 

[Nereid]

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)

 

[Chronos]

It saves a lot of needless effort to run with the baton post posteri.

 

[Garth]

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)

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. http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775
3. gr-qc/0212111 ] The Principles of Self Creation Cosmology and its Comparison with General Relativity[/URL]
4. gr-qc/0302026]Experimental tests of the New Self Creation Cosmology and a heterodox prediction for Gravity Probe B[/URL]
5. gr-qc/0302088]The derivation of the coupling constant in the new Self Creation Cosmology[/URL]
6. astro-ph/0401136] The Self Creation challenge to the cosmological concordance model[/URL]
7. gr-qc/0405094] Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory [/URL] published in http://novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1869

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

 

[Garth]

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

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

 

[/0]

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

MAYBE.


Miles

 

[Garth]

Resurrecting this continuing topic: Constraints from old quasar APM 08279+-5255

5. Conclusions
The age test has been applied for two different $\Lambda$(t) cosmologies by using the old quasar APM 08279+5255. For $\Lambda \sim R^{-n}$ (extended Chen and Wu model) we found n >= 0.21. This means that the cosmic concordance $\Lambda$CDM model (n = 0) is incompatible with the existence of this object. This result is in line with the previous analysis by Alcaniz et al.13. However, there is an upper limit on n from physical and observational considerations. In particular, the original CW model (n = 2) is not compatible with the WMAP data because it requires $\Omega_{mo}$ > 2/3 (see also Appendix).
Finally, we have established new limits to the $\epsilon$ parameter of the Wang and Meng model (with and with no baryons) which are more stringent than the ones recently determined by Alcaniz and Lima 14. Until the present, the existence of the old quasar constrains severely all the models present in the literature.

(emphasis mine.)

Garth

 

[Chronos]

It's his first paper on Arxiv and makes a rather bold assertion [the concordance model is wrong] for an 'early' work. It is, however, nicely written and cites a repectable number of other paper. Be interesting to see if it is cited. It should draw some attention if valid.

 

[Garth]

It's his first paper on Arxiv and makes a rather bold assertion [the concordance model is wrong] for an 'early' work. It is, however, nicely written and cites a repectable number of other paper. Be interesting to see if it is cited. It should draw some attention if valid.

Is the question not whether the author is new but rather whether he is correct?

With that name he has a lot to live up to!

Note for information: Jose Fernando de Jesus is a Post graduate student of the Departamento de Astronomia of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

And yes, it is a bold statement!

Garth

 

[Garth]

Does the age problem force us to invent yet more new physics to keep the standard model concordant with the data? Interacting Dark Energy and Dark Matter: observational Constraints from Cosmological Parameters

We discussed several observational constraints on the two parameter space of holographic dark energy/dark matter model. We can confidently conclude that the interaction must be nonvanishing in order that we explain all available data at the same time.

The age constraint provided by the old quasar leads to a lower limit of the b parameter, namely b² > 0.05, which seems to be an outcome which should be respected as foreseen by all observations we analyzed.

Although extremely simple, the model opens up wide possibilities towards new physics: 30% of the energy is composed of a new state of matter, interacting with the rest 67% yet unknown, a fascinating and probably extremely complex universe!

"A new state of matter, interacting with the rest 67% yet unknown.." and undiscovered and untested in laboratory physics.

"Of the making of many epicycles there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh!" Ecclesiates 12:12 (Adapted by me)

Garth