New COMAP radio survey will peer beneath the 'tip of the iceberg' of galaxies to reveal a hidden era of star formation
Sometime around 400 million years after the birth of our universe the first stars began to form. It was the end of the so-called dark age of the universe, and a new age full of light began. Over time, more and more galaxies began to take shape and served as factories for the production of new stars. This process peaked about four billion years after the Big Bang.
Fortunately for astronomers, this bygone era can still be observed. Distant light takes time to reach us, and powerful telescopes can pick up light emitted by galaxies and stars billions of years ago (the age of our universe is 13.8 billion years). But the details of this chapter in the history of our universe are obscure because most of the stars formed then are faint and obscured by dust.
A new Caltech project called COMAP will give us a new look at this age of galaxy formation. It will help answer questions about the real reason for the rapid increase in star formation in the universe.
"Most instruments will perhaps see the tip of the iceberg when looking at galaxies from this period," says Kieran Cleary, the project's principal investigator and deputy director of Caltech's Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO). "But COMAP will see what is underneath, hidden from view."
Kieran Cleary. Credit: Kieran Cleary/Caltech
In the current phase of the project, the 10.40 meter diameter "Leighton" radio antenna at OVRO is used to study the most common types of star-forming galaxies scattered throughout space and time. This includes galaxies that are too difficult to see in other ways because they are too faint or obscured by too much dust. The radio observations detect cold hydrogen gas, the raw material from which stars are formed. It is not easy to detect this gas directly, so instead COMAP measures bright radio signals from carbon monoxide (CO) gas, which is always found together with hydrogen. COMAP's radio camera is the most powerful ever built to detect these radio signals.
The first scientific results from the project have just been published in seven papers in The Astrophysical Journal. Based on observations made at the end of one year in a planned five-year survey, COMAP established upper limits for the amount of cold gas that must be present in galaxies during the period under study, including galaxies that are normally too faint and too dusty to be seen. The project has yet to directly detect a signal of CO, but these initial results show it is on track to do so by the end of the initial five-year survey, ultimately producing the most comprehensive picture yet of the universe's star formation history.
"Looking to the future of the project, we intend to use this technique to repeatedly look farther and farther back in time," says Cleary. "Starting 4 billion years after the big bang, we will continue to move backwards in time until we reach the period of the first stars and galaxies, about two billion years before."
Anthony Readhead, co-principal investigator and professor emeritus of astronomy, says COMAP will not only see the first ages of stars and galaxies, but also their epic sunsets. "We observe the formation, rise and fall of stars like the tides of the sea," he says.
COMAP works by capturing fuzzy radio images of galaxy clusters over cosmic time instead of sharp images of individual galaxies. This blurring allows astronomers to effectively capture all the radio light coming from a larger pool of galaxies, even the faintest and dustiest that have never been seen.
"This way we can find the average properties of typical faint galaxies without having to know very precisely where each individual galaxy is," explains Cleary. "It's like finding the temperature of a large amount of water using a thermometer instead of analyzing the movement of the individual water molecules."
Scientific articles by group members
More of the topic in Hayadan:
36 תגובות
Yehuda
Read in your free time - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.05766.pdf
The bottom line is that measurements show that gravity has not changed for many billions of years (and ranges accordingly).
Yehuda
General relativity is incredibly accurate for distances of hundreds of millions of light years.
If you want to keep burying your head in the sand then good luck.
Miracles my friend
The opinion of scientists is important to me and I'm sorry if I was understood differently.
The deviation of Mercury from Newton's gravitation formulas is 43 seconds of arc per century, which is a very tiny magnitude. "It seems to me" that you can calculate according to Newton and know that you are wrong in your calculations by a fraction of a percent!
I don't think the relativity correction is wrong, on the contrary, it is incredibly accurate for the distances of the planets, tens of astronomical units at most, less than a thousand light years. It doesn't have to be like that even for distances of complete light years and certainly not for thousands, millions or billions of light years! (See David Day).
And regarding your question, how is it that there are galaxies that do not need this correction?, my simple answer is that a tree whose fruits are rotten may grow here and there a fruit that is not rotten!, it will still be called a "tree of rotten fruits"!
And regarding your last question - how do I explain all the other phenomena that dark matter explains?
My answer - there are many other options but I won't go into it now.
All the best, miracles
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
I will try to explain my words better.
Newton's formula is an approximation. For rough calculations it is excellent - the orbit of the planets around the sun for example. It is also accurate enough to show that there is a "problem" in the rotation of the stars around the galaxies.
I will ask you three questions.
1. How do you think Newton's formula should be changed to explain the precession of the planet Mercury?
Do you rule out general relativity for that??
2. If changing Newton's formula explains the rotational speeds of stars in galaxies - how is it that there are galaxies that do not need this correction?
3. How do you explain *all* the other phenomena that dark matter explains?
Yehuda
Suddenly the opinion of scientists is important in your eyes?
In any case - they are wrong. You also know (I hope) that Newton's formula is not valid even for the planet Mercury.
Dear Nissim
Get another example
"The Gravitational Formula", by Antonis Antonio, PhD student in the Philosophy of Science, University of Bristol. "Back in the 70s, a seminal study by astronomers Vera Rubin and Kent Ford about how our neighboring galaxy Andromeda rotates revealed a surprising inconsistency between theory and observation. According to our best gravitational theory - Newton's laws - stars and gas in a galaxy should rotate more and more slowly the farther they are from the center of the galaxy." End quote.
Note miracles, they all use Newton's gravitation formula!
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Miracles my friend
There is a textbook in Hebrew "The Universe - Fundamentals of Astrophysics" by Dr. Meir Midev, Dr. Noah Brosh, and Professor Hagi Netzer, from Tel Aviv University there, in chapter 3.5 he discusses the mass of the galaxy and the respected authors decided to do the calculations according to... Newton. The book published in 2000, you understand miracles, even these respectable academics prefer to use Newton's formula and not make it difficult for themselves and the world with relativistic formulas. If they are allowed then so am I! And it is not important that the relativity formulas are more correct because the problem is not relativity!
So far,
bye my friend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You keep talking about changing Newton's formula to fit observations. I explained to you that Newton's formula has not been used for 100 years.
I also explained to you that Einstein's formulas were tested to huge ranges.
And I also explained to you that dark matter explains phenomena that you don't know how to explain...
Miracles my friend
Your claim that I don't want to listen to you has nothing to base it on. After all, I took what was said in the fruitful debate between us and summarized the main points. So this contradicts in advance the main point of your claim!
The debate between us is reminiscent of the debate in the Middle Ages, between the new heliocentric theory, and the holy geocentric theory that existed. For this reason, the epicycles were invented, just to continue to grasp the geocentric movement of perfect circles, the method that was accepted by the Catholic Church.
” These are ad hoc corrections designed to preserve the principle of the uniform circular motion of the planets. Such corrections are considered unscientific in modern science. In particular, Karl Popper summed it up this way: preserving the principle of uniform circular motion by adding epicycles on top of epicycles is an example of a persistent attempt to defend the theory against refutation, in contrast to the Popperian approach that a scientific theory must be falsifiable and it is necessary to try to disprove it."
End of quote (from an article appearing on the scientist website "The Universe in a Nutshell" Dr. Kantrowitz's article from 2008. The article discusses the very subject we are discussing, the correctness of scientific theories.)
Why miracles, why does this remind me of the dark matter, which, like the epicycles, was invented only to hold on to gravity!
You said miracles that I am wrong to think about me the essence of your scientific opinion, and it is different from the accepted position, so....
Maybe you realize in the secret of your heart that something is lame in the explanation, which is the conventional explanation that exists and is agreed upon by almost everyone, except Yehuda and a few other crazy people to talk about.
So sorry if I'm wrong
Good day miracles
Sincerely appreciated
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
It is impossible to have a fruitful discussion with a person who does not want to listen.
Miracles my friend
I enjoyed responding to you, and we don't have to agree. With your permission, we will summarize our views:
We have two opinions about the conduct of the universe that manage to explain it.
Nissim's opinion:
You continue to grasp the good gravity, even at great distances in the universe (galaxies, clusters of galaxies at distances of billions of light years), and when gravity is not accurate in the calculations, by 90% or more, you change the measured data with dark matter as much as needed and where needed, and when it is not enough and your universe Needs an explanation of accelerated universe expansion, so add as much (dark) energy as needed and where needed and then write to Judah and proudly state that "the new laws of gravity will be tested and found to be incredibly accurate even at ranges of billions of light years" !!!
Yehuda's opinion:
In the large ranges of billions of light years, when gravity starts to be faked in a big way, gravity is given up, and we switch to pressure differences (due to the fact that the universe is a gaseous body full of particles and photons moving from place to place), then:
The galaxies move almost completely free of gravity, without dark matter, and the universe expands into the void around it, and even, it will do so at an acceleration
(Nissim says that this will happen if we also decide that the universe also has a center), so the expansion will be accelerated without the need for dark energy.
Because this is how the outward acceleration will decrease as time passes.
Who will we prefer? Nissim's opinion based on the beloved gravity, with dark matter and dark energy,
או
Yehuda's opinion, almost no gravity at the greatest distances in the universe??
Nissim says: 99.9999999% of the academy specializes in miracles
Yehuda says: Science is not democratic and the majority does not decide!…
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Yehuda
Let's start with the fact that we have known for over 100 years that Newton's gravity formula is not correct at large distances (and not near large masses either). I've told you this dozens of times already.
And we will end with the fact that the "new" laws of gravity have been tested and found to be incredibly accurate at ranges of billions of light years. And I've already said that dozens of times...
Yehuda, if I say something and your response is to ignore it, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Miracles my friend
Gravitation explained very well the movement of the planets in our solar system. At distances of a few astronomical units, less than a thousand light years. As soon as we tried to explain the movement in galaxies, which are "slightly" larger bodies, (a million or a billion or even a trillion times), gravitation began to be falsified in a big way. Here a change must be made in the formula. Let's start from the light to the heavy.
Initially, one should try to correct one of the elements of the formula, for example the amount of material M that participated in the formula (what will be called dark matter addition). But a possible change in the other members of the formula should also be examined, for example, change G. You know miracles, if you change G exactly as you change M, you will reach the same result.
In order for David Yom to be completely satisfied, we will also have to look into the possibility of correcting the formulas, for example the correction of Newton's second law, called the MOND theory, and if we still do not reach a satisfactory solution, David Yom will be very satisfied if we are brave and replace the gravitation formula with another force.
I must point out that this is the most difficult change, because from the day we were born, we memorize that gravity is the force acting in the entire universe. Will we be brave enough to make the change???
The dark matter miracles, is only one of 20 legitimate options for a solution that I have found and it is clear to me that most of them are not suitable, but David Yom will be happy with me because I am checking all the options,
And if you ask Nissim: Why?? My answer: because that's how it looks to me!
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
We have many observations and we come up with possible explanations. In the case of dark matter - we have to explain: the movement of galaxies (but only some of them!), gravitational dusting, the movement of galaxies in groups, the cosmic background radiation.
We have not been able to find any model of changing gravity equations that explains all these phenomena better than dark matter.
Dark energy is a *prediction* of general relativity, and much later we found observations that confirm the prediction. David was proud of us today!!!
We thought about atoms 2,300 years before we discovered them 🙂 The reason it took so long is that someone like you Judas, Aristotle, said "I don't think so".
Yehuda - the dark matter is an observation. We don't know what it is, and there's a chance we never will.
So what??
to the fan
I did not understand your last comment about two entities in one body.
How did you come up with this?, please explain.
Yehuda Sabdarmish
for Judas/miracles,
I would be happy to meet two entities in one body. exciting!
Dear Nissim
Thank you for an instructive and constructive response.
First of all you are right and apparently I have no idea about your opinion in science. And I apologize for my unfounded statement on the subject.
You are right that I see the universe as mainly Newtonian, but I do not see it as a disrespect if it is possible, for example, to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe without dark energy! and the behavior of galaxies without gravitation.
Dark matter was "discovered" because of adherence to gravitation as the central force for operating the universe and it doesn't have to be that way!
Agree with me Nissim, my friend, that there is a chance that the dark matter does not exist and the chance is increasing as time passes without it being discovered. I'm sorry I'm not well versed in statistics to scientifically calculate this chance, it could be an idea for an interesting article. Just as a statistical calculation determined the existence of the Higgs boson, a statistical calculation will determine the non-existence of dark matter.
I will delve into your response again and reserve the right to respond to it in the future as well.
All the best, and thanks again for a challenging response!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
"Singularity" is a mathematical concept, not a physical one. The theory of general relativity - which is a stupid model(!) - has a singularity point at time 0. The idea is simple - 0/0 is not defined.
The big bang theory is different, because in quantum theory it is not possible for all matter to be concentrated in a point, and there is no such thing as "zero time".
You look at the universe as Newton looked at it: particles existing in infinite space and linear time. Your universe has a center - and this contradicts our observations.
There are reasons why physicists believe in the Big Bang. One reason is the cosmic background radiation. A second reason is the concentration of the elements in the universe. A third reason is the homogeneity of the visible universe.
Physicists do not claim to know how to explain the formation of the universe. It is dishonest of you to claim that.
You claim that there is no dark matter - for the most unscientific reason I've ever heard in my life "80 years of searching and not finding - so I don't think it exists"
You claim that I hold the accepted opinion.... It's a little funny that you say that - because you have no idea what my opinion is 🙂
to the fan
Nissim and Anochi do not deviate from the topic. The debate between us will continue for a long time. Nissim's knowledge is more than mine when it comes to science and astronomy. Nissim holds to the accepted facts in science, while I, perhaps due to lack of knowledge, doubt many things such as: the dark matter, the constant speed of light, the essence of gravity and more.
I see that you also notice that there is something missing in the accepted theories, so welcome to Idan
All the best !
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You are the one who claims to know... not me.
Regardless, you really have to try to understand some relativity. The idea that the universe has a center contradicts all our speculation.
For miracles and others
Your and the entire academy's knowledge is that the universe started at a singular point and in less than a second the big bang happened, and there was the inflationary expansion to the size of a galaxy.
From there on, 13.8 billion years it spreads according to the laws of physics known to us.
The difference between you and me, that I give up on guessing the behavior in the first second, because I do not have and no one does the physical laws in a dense universe the size of a galaxy, but the behavior of the universe in the following 13.8 billion years (apart from the first second), I see more or less as behavior In the accepted theory that you support.
I'm not afraid to say that I don't know what happened in the first second? There are several options:-
And maybe the first second will be longer for me?? And maybe part of the solution will be obtained from a greater speed of light during the bang period at the beginning of the universe ???,
And maybe... we will initially make a series of compensations??
In short, I don't know, and honestly, neither do you!
Please respond gently
Yehuda Sabdarmish
I see no point in deviating from the topic.
The truth is that no one knows how the universe was created. There are many theories out there, but currently the equations of general relativity are consistent and even supported by means of observations, whether that of cosmic radiation or galactic tones. These equations should not emphasize that this is the only truth, and the very fact that we already know about galaxies that were formed even before what the big bang theory holds means that something is missing in this theory. Apparently, Andre Linda is not sleeping well these days.
Yehuda
Who is talking about dark matter?
All I said is that anyone who thinks that at time 0 there could be a universe 100 thousand light years in size doesn't understand basic physics. I hear Einstein turning over in his grave!
Let's say that God created a universe the size of a galaxy - do you understand that this means that this universe has a center? And that it contradicts *all* modern physics??
Note, dear Nissim, that you are quite in the minority and in fact most of the knowledgeable respondents in this article, their opinion is different from yours.
You can continue to adhere to the "modern physics" of dark matter and singular points and also adhere to the big bang, but many already doubt the aforementioned "modern" topics, and we have already learned that doubting is the essence of science!
Does this prove they don't understand physics???, I doubt it!
Please respond gently - please.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Note, dear Nissim, that you are quite in the minority and in fact most of the knowledgeable respondents in this article, their opinion is different from yours.
You can continue to adhere to "modern physics" of dark matter and singular points and also adhere to the Big Bang, but many are already questioning the aforementioned "modern" issues!
Does this prove they don't understand physics???, I doubt it!
Please respond gently - please.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Yehuda
You have every right not to understand physics on the one hand - and to throw all modern physics in the trash, on the other hand.
Dear Nissim!
I do not claim that the universe started with the size of a galaxy, and I already wrote at the end of my previous response:
".... To be clear, that the reason for this determination, (a universe the size of a galaxy), is the inability to know, at this stage of scientific research, what are the laws of science that determine the behavior of a denser universe." End quote.
That is, I am not claiming that the universe started with the size of a galaxy, I am claiming that I do not have the tools to decide what was the state of a universe smaller than the size of a galaxy. We wrote the scientific laws for a sparser universe, and one would have to be naive to think that the laws of science would not be different in the denser universe.
I will come back again and say: "You only have what you have measured, beyond that everything is in doubt and must be measured (David Yom)."
And I hope that with David Yom we agree.
Therefore, it really doesn't matter if I understand what "space-time" is or not, what is important is that it is a law (or claim) established in our time, that is, at a time when our universe is large, sparse and scattered, and in our "poor" surroundings, and does not necessarily have to be The same is true in the dense universe.
Sabdarmish Yehuda.
Yehuda
I see a serious problem with your galactic universe. Do you understand what spacetime is?
If you understand this - you will understand that a universe the size of a galaxy is not possible in zero time.
for miracles
I will refer to your learned response sentence by sentence.
Your response: The big bang theory says that the universe was always infinite.
My opinion: I have always thought that it is unscientific to say about something that it is infinite, since there are no infinite measurements and therefore we cannot try and disprove this claim (contradicting Popper).
In addition, I do not think that the infinity of the universe is due to the big bang theory. I can define in my mind's eye a finite universe the size of 1000 billion light years that started with a big bang, and this will not change the laws of physics that exist in our "small and finite" universe.
Your response: The theory does not say that our universe started from a singular point.
My opinion: in every publication I read, it is about "pride" about a universe that started with a singular point.
Your response: This point is an artifact of general relativity. That is - general relativity does not describe the primordial universe.
My opinion: I agree with your opinion, and even more so, there is no scientific theory that can compress all the matter in the universe into one singular point.
Your response: If you want to dismiss inflation, then please offer a better hypothesis.
My opinion: I wrote this in my response dated August 25.8.2022, XNUMX, and I will repeat it:
To avoid the definition of an "inflationary universe" we will start the expansion of the universe starting from the size of an average galaxy, or even more, and thus we would save ourselves the strange phenomena of an "inflationary universe", and even of a "singular point" where all the matter in the universe is concentrated.
Let it be clear that the reason for this determination is the inability to know, at this stage of scientific research, what the laws of science are that determine the behavior of a denser universe.
Thanks for your challenging response, Nissim.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
The big bang theory says that the universe was always infinite.
The theory does not say that our universe started from a singular point. This point is an artifact of general relativity. In other words, the general theory of relativity does not describe the primordial universe.
If you want to rule out inflation, then please come up with a better hypothesis.
Agree with the previous science commenters who have commented on the doubt they have about the big bang. The main reason I see for this is that it is difficult to set up a scientific experiment in a strange tiny universe where we don't know how the cosmological laws work. To assume that the laws are the same laws that we know from our large and scattered universe, even in a universe that centers all the matter in it in a tiny area is something that should not be done and is unscientific and contrary to David Yom who claimed that you only have what you measured, and also to the philosopher Popper who stated that a claim is scientific if it can be put up to refutation .
For example, we will take the expansion of the universe, looking back it is clear to us that the universe was smaller in the past, but, can we decide to establish a stable Hubble constant and laws that will cause the universe to shrink and reach the size of a singular point?, an act that requires us to stage an "inflationary universe" after the bang? We could avoid the definition of an "inflationary universe" if we determined that the initial universe shrinks to the size of an average galaxy and from there it begins its expansion journey without a strange inflationary universe from a singular point to the size of a galaxy.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Paradoxically, the more we advance in technology and the more we discover, the less we understand. What's more, what we discover contradicts everything we thought. I'm an atheist, but I'm starting to think that maybe the answer, which by the way we'll never know, lies in the metaphysical plane.
Avihu
Certainly there is no proof of the Big Bang. But... there is a lot of evidence for the Big Bang - and there is no other theory that explains the evidence.
@Abihu
One should not go too far and rule out the big bang theory altogether. There is more than enough evidence for the existence of a bang 13.8 billion years ago. The cosmic radiation and gravitational waves that have been discovered in recent years are proofs that are very difficult to refute.
The contradiction is related to the process between the Big Bang and the formation of the first stars - a process that lasted 500 million years. And here James Webb discovered the Maisie galaxy as part of the CEERS project which scanned a section of the sky in the Ursa Major group and found that the age of the galaxy is 290 million years after the big bang. Hence, our current models regarding the process of the formation of the first stars are incorrect. Something is missing here.
There is no proof of the big bang theory on the contrary there is evidence that there was no bang because the expansion of space and galaxies is not round, but flat if there was a big bang it would have spread to all sides. And the main thing is that those who are trained in the explosion should explain why the tiny grain was tiny, where it was created, and what prevented it from remaining dormant, why would it suddenly explode. And if there was such a foundation, then why aren't there more bombs exploding. After all, it is known that the universe contains many types of stars, galaxies, suns, etc.. so logic says that we will have to discover multiple universes... in any case, the most important discovery is that the rational man has taken care of the universe and is not at all important in space
I will repeat what I wrote just yesterday: and add:
Modern science advances with the help of observations - it has barely been operating for more than a month and James Webb is already questioning the Big Bang theory. Since we can calculate the distance of a certain galaxy based on redshift, we now have a telescope that can distinguish even in the infrared range (which is not visible to the human eye) and to our surprise we discover that there are incredibly harmonious galaxies that were created before what the theories we have held so far hold.
The big bang theory holds that the bang created 75% hydrogen, 25% helium and sometimes a little bit of lithium. After 300 thousand years the first atoms were formed and 500 million years after that the first stars were formed, and now it turns out that the theory is wrong because Webb was able to locate incredibly organized and ordered galaxies even 13.5 billion years ago or 500 million years after the big bang. So something with the theory just doesn't add up...and this has consequences for the standard model as well.
(For support: https://www.hayadan.org.il/evidence-for-stars-forming-just-250-million-years-after-big-bang-2605182
One of the theories believes that cold hydrogen, helium and lithium alone are not capable of creating stars at such a fast rate and that "lumps" of dark matter are involved here which have not yet dispersed and yet are still not accessible to research and knowledge.