New String of Galaxies clashing with Big Bang Theory?

Greetings-I came upon this article on CNN:CNN.com - Galaxy find stirs Big Bang debate - Jan. 8, 2004In essence it brings to question the Big Bang Theory by comparing the approximate timing of the Big Bang (~13.7 bya) to the approximate age and size of these newly discovered galaxies. I'd be interested in seeing the actual article itself.It's also interesting to note that although it was partially funded by NASA, they couldn't use a telescope in the US because American astronomers thought it would be technically impossible. Is this because of position on earth, or did they actually believe it was impossible no matter where they were, and the Aussies defied their expectations?Thoughts?

So far as I know the only creationists who really object to the Big Bang are Young Earther's who will hardly be happy with the idea that the universe is likely to be even older than current versions of the Big Bang suggest.I would expect that the U.S. Astronomers reckoned that the telescopes in the U.S. were not up to the job.

Uh, isn't it obvious why US based scopes couldn't be used? If the galaxies are visible from Australia and Chile they are NOT visible from the northern hemisphere.

---

Common sense isn't

I don't see the little bit here in the CNN article questioning the big bang. The problem lies with an understanding of how galaxies and formations of galaxies can shape up so quickly as best as I can read it. I'll have a more realistic article on it in a few weeks when Science News gets here.

---

Common sense isn't

Doesn't that depend on what they were trying to do ? If the object is just to look back in time, rather than look at known objects in more detail then the hemisphere doesn't matter. The size of the telescope, atmospheric conditions and "light pollution" are all more important.

but they are studying these particular structures. You can't do that from the north. Did I miss something?

---

Common sense isn't

I have only seen the CNN story, but I don't see any indication that the study was commenced to look at objects already known. If anything it suggests the opposite. Also I don't see how they can have been refused access to a telescope unless they asked for it - and I don't believe that they would have asked for access to a telescope that couldn't look in the right direction.

Yes, you are right PaulK. It is an odd thing. I guess we'll find out more later -- a significant possibility is that CNN has it wrong in some way.

---

Common sense isn't

Rule #1Don't get your science from CNN. (A good example was the garbage written about leap seconds last week)Concerning the present question:The filament of galaxies mentioned here (at Z=2.38) is not a problem for the Big Bang but more of a problem for SPH and N body simulations of galaxy formation in a Lambda CDM cosmology.Compared to those models structures of galaxies on this scale probably should not have formed at this epoch in the universe. I would caution reading too much into this though. These theoretical models are always undergoing tweaking AND I would point out the scale for the structure isn't that far from theoretical feasibility.As to the comments about US telescopes - well that puzzles me. The onject in question is at a latitude of -44 degrees which puts it southerly but not impossible so - especially from Hawaii. So the only reason I can think was that they were refused time from the Hawaii scopes because of priority.Now a redshift of 2.38 puts the object in an area referred to as the redshift desert - spectra are difficult to obtain due to atmospheric absorptions - but the Keck scopes on Hawaii are as capable as any in the world. In summary, I think the CNN staffer who wrote the repoet doesn't know dick.

I do not know if this is the same story or not but I found this through alltheweb.com Check it out and let me know if it is.New-Found Old Galaxies Upsetting Astronomers' Long-Held Theories on the Big Bang - The New York Times[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-08-2004]

It seems this article does coincide with the CNN article. However the NYT article mentions utilizing Hubble, rather than the Australian telescopes. Perhaps Hubble was used for initial confirmation? I honestly haven't a clue.As for articles on CNN, I agree wholeheartedly about the quality of pieces from the science writers. It was, more or less, an article I merely stumbled upon. Astronomy/Astrophysics is extremely fascinating to me, but unfortunately it's not one of my strengths, which is usually why I stumble upon secondary sources for info. (not good practice, I know).Many thanks for everyone's comments.

Hawaii's latitude is 22 degrees north. The cluster is at 44 degrees south. That puts it far enough south that it doesn't get terribly high in the sky. The observations would need to be fairly long even under good conditions, and I expect that even in Hawaii the cluster didn't get high enough to do good observations. So they had to be done from the southern hemisphere.I wouldn't be surprised if the news article simply got this a bit garbled; I have seen far worse. I happen to know some of the people on that team; if I bump into them I'll ask.

I've recently posted about this at TheologyWeb, since it was raised there by another poster based on an article in Canberra Times.The major researcher cited is Paul Francis. His own web pages have a discussion of the gaxaxy string, and also a FAQ for interested persons. Check it out. Giant Galaxy String Defies Models of How Universe EvolvedNote the first question and answer from the FAQ:
Does this prove the Big Bang Theory wrong?
No - the evidence for the Big Bang is now pretty overwhelming and this certainly won't budge it.It is a cmmon misconception that this string indicates that there is something wrong with the big bang itself. That's not quite true.The problem with this string is to fit its formation into the available time. There are solutions proposed and discussed in the FAQ and technical papers. It is certainly a problem, and the Big Bang defines the context within which the problem exists.As Asimov said:
The most exciting phrase in science is not "Eureka!", ... but That's funny...Cheers -- cjhs aka Sylas