Gravitational Field Modification

I've been working on a hypothesis related to Gravity Field Modification for a little more than two years. It was part of a larger project that I've been fiddling with for more like five. None of it should have taken as long as it has, but time is, always is, the rarest resource in anything I do. I presume it's the same for us all.

It didn't start with research, per se. In fact, it started at the end in some ways. I spotted what looked to me like the base set of mechanisms, the fundamental physical interactions that could, if only the right lever could be found to set them in motion, modify a gravitational field.

It was an interesting mental exercise; having the end in view and lacking only the means to get there. But, the more I looked at it, the more convinced I became that it was real. Part of the reason for that is its simplicity. Once armed with the requisite knowledge to understand the topic, to understand the terms in which the solution is expressed, the approach becomes simplicity itself.

In my years of somewhat passively studying physics, if there's a single defining characteristic of the natural universe that has astounded me most, it's the elegance of it. Mass-energy equivalence, for example, doesn't require volumes to express; it's E=mc². An awful lot is implied within that simple string of characters. If you happen to possess the knowledge to understand the depths of it, it becomes as spellbinding to behold as a sunset. Even something as simple as calculating the volume of a sphere, shares some underlying commonality with the natural languages of physics that somehow, speaks of its shared heritage, its shared genes with the other pure constructs of reality: V=4/3πr³. Yes, that looks- right. There is a conciseness, a brevity, a balance to it. It is a declaration unencumbered with complexities and exceptions, expressed in the purest dialect of the physical language.

There seems to be an inevitability to the notion of gravity modification. Given how effectively other systems of nature can be exercised, such as electromagnetics, chemical interactions, thermodynamics, sound, and so on; gravitation can seem an odd holdout. Why can’t we control gravity like we can electricity? Looking into gravitation and understanding its nature in terms of General Relativity brings quick clarity to the question, and reveals the enormity of the problem.

Yet, gravity occurs anywhere there is mass. I'll overlook Dark Matter for now. It is present in the internal furnaces of the sun, and in a cup of water sitting on a dining room table. Because of this, I have been led from the start to refuse to believe that gravity modification should require exotic conditions and weird one-off fiddling with matter.

In my years as a software and systems architect, I began to spot within the design of systems the tell-tale signs of symmetry and elegance that spoke of good bones. If a developer had to resort to complex, obscure operations within a database transaction, for example, I would begin wondering what in his design had led to the need for such an exception. The answer was not a usually; it was an always. There was always an unnecessary complexity that drove the developer to the extraordinary circumstances that required the use of obscure solutions. Let's rethink this, I would say.

My belief is that gravitational modification is straightforward in principle. I can't  construct the lever, but I know what it looks like, and where it goes. I have written a paper on the subject. I'll get it out soon.

More to come.

15) Dark Matter: Spacetime Cavitation

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

All prior posts in this Dark Matter series are summarized as follows:

Spacetime Cavitation Summary

1. Galaxies begin as regions of Spacetime Cavitation resulting from Universal Expansion, often taking on whirlpool-like shapes, which reflect the underlying curvature and motions of Spacetime itself, upon and within which they are formed (see image below).
2. Matter has a counterpart within the realm of non-material Spacetime. When subjected to extreme cavitation, an applicable unit of Spacetime is converted into its material counterpart (mass and/or energy). Said another way: Matter is a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation. This counterpart is almost always hydrogen and/or radiation.
3. With respect to galaxy formation, hydrogen produced as a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation, which generally lacks sufficient mass to coalesce into stars by reason of its own gravitation when sparsely distributed, instead reacts to the Gravity Well within which it was produced, spiraling and coalescing to produce stars and the other visible objects within galaxies.
4. Since newly formed galaxies are a result of cavitation, their structures are maintained via the combination of Spacetime Cavitation Gravitation and Mass Gravitation, where, on smaller scales such as solar systems, gravitation is based on mass (spacetime curvature resulting from the presence of mass), but on the larger scales of galaxies, structure is maintained within the underlying, curved Spacetime fabric (spacetime curvature caused by cavitation). In other words, visible matter rests upon the non-flat, preexisting Spacetime structures resulting from cavitation, like bits of Styrofoam floating upon a whirlpool of water draining from a kitchen sink (see this earlier post). This removes the apparent discrepancy between galaxy structure and the seemingly insufficient mass to account for it; and further removes the need for Dark Matter (unless we redefine Dark Matter itself as merely a vacuum of Spacetime, which may be useful. In this, it could be a second classification of gravity, but more on this later).
5. There was no Big Bang as currently theorized. Matter is continuously produced at points of extreme cavitation as a result of the Universe's relentless expansion, analogous (in some respects) to the roiling bubbles produced when gases emerge from solution during extreme depressurization of water.
6. Background microwave radiation thought to be remnants of the Big Bang is likely the result of galactic cavitation.

Definition of a Galaxy
A galaxy is a large region of curved spacetime, which typically takes the shape of a spiral, and often contains matter such as stars, stellar remnants, and an interstellar medium of gas and dust.

---

The next few posts in this Dark Matter series will address the points on this page in more detail. Along the way, we will also look at mainstream observations that seem to support these assertions, which will touch upon the origins of matter, galaxy formation, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), the CMB Dipole Anisotropy, the blackbody Spectral Energy Distribution (SED), and more.

To be continued.

14) Dark Matter: Galaxy Formation and the Origin of Matter

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

Now for the next big question, which has to do with the origin of matter. All along, the assumption has been that all matter present within the Universe originated from the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. As I have pointed out, I believe this theory is wrong (Big Bang theory, that is) for many reasons. I will touch upon a couple of them now, and a few more in a following post.

If all the matter within the Universe is nothing more than the debris field of the Big Bang, then what caused the galaxies to form in the first place? I discussed what I believe to be part of the answer to this question in the previous post, finally concluding that Galaxies form at points where Universal Expansion causes spacetime to break down, cavitating into regions of non-flat spacetime. I call this process, Spacetime Cavitation.

I submit that most galaxies form as regions of Spacetime Cavitation like this, and quite possibly, all of them. To fully grasp this concept requires that we no longer think of galaxies as collections of matter, but as regions of curved spacetime that happen to contain matter. Galaxies do not begin as regions of coalescing matter, but as regions of Spacetime Cavitation, which are otherwise largely empty when cavitation begins. In fact, this cavitation probably occurs most commonly in regions that are pristinely empty of matter, but I will touch more upon this in the future.

As a level-set, the following assertions spell this concept out more succinctly:

1. Galaxies are large regions of curved spacetime.
2. Galaxies usually begin at points where Spacetime Cavitation occurs, which is generally caused by the stresses of Universal Expansion.

Origins of Matter

If the matter within galaxies did not originate from the Big Bang, then where did it come from? This leads to the next important part of my hypotheses: I submit that matter forms as a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation.

We are used to thinking of E = mc² in terms of mass/energy equivalence. The concept of conservation of mass/energy also comes into play here, which tells us that within a closed system, mass is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes state between matter and energy. I believe that this assertion is only partially correct.

I submit that matter, whether in the state of mass or energy, has a counterpart within the realms of non-physical Spacetime, which surfaces during Spacetime Cavitation. When subjected to extreme cavitation, an applicable unit of Spacetime is converted into its physical counterpart (mass and/or energy). Said another way: Matter is a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation. And, the physical product of this event is almost always hydrogen and/or radiation.

This assertion meshes very well with the BBC News article about the Star-less Galaxy mentioned in the previous post (and I am compelled to mention again, that this expectation predated my discovery of the article). This star-less galaxy has form and structure - and even rotation - but contains no stars. It contains virtually nothing but hydrogen, the lightest element.

If this hydrogen were floating in a region of typically flat, intergalactic space, it would almost certainly continue to do so forever, or until it came into contact with some other influencing factor such as another galaxy (highly unlikely), or simply dissipate. But, at some point in the incomprehensible future, this galaxy will begin to fill with stars, and those stars will pass through their life cycles to produce heavier elements, and within a billion years or so, it will have the appearance of a typical, visible young galaxy, full of incubating stars. These stars would have no chance of forming were it not that this body of hydrogen - by no coincidence - is located within a pre-existing galactic structure.

To summarize; with respect to galaxy formation, hydrogen produced as a byproduct of Spacetime Cavitation, which lacks sufficient mass to coalesce into stars by reason of its own gravity when sparsely distributed, reacts to the Gravity Well within which it was produced, spiraling and coalescing to produce stars and other visible objects within galaxies - again, like bits of Styrofoam floating upon a whirlpool of water draining from a kitchen sink.

Rather than thinking of the entire Universe as having a fixed amount of mass and energy, it is likely more accurate to think at galactic scales. Once a galaxy forms and matures to the point where Spacetime Cavitation abates, the galaxy will receive no more hydrogen to fuel its physical processes.

This means that our current understanding of what galaxies are, should change slightly. Wikipedia defines a galaxy like this:

A galaxy is a massive, gravitationally bound system that consists of stars and stellar remnants, an interstellar medium of gas and dust, and an important but poorly understood component tentatively dubbed dark matter.

This definition is good, of course, but not entirely accurate. I submit the following definition:

A galaxy is a large region of curved spacetime, which typically takes the shape of a spiral, and often contains matter such as stars, stellar remnants, and an interstellar medium of gas and dust.

The typical lifecycle of a galaxy is as follows (actually, how galaxies may end their lives is not included here):

1. Galaxies first appear at points where Universal Expansion stresses the spacetime fabric to the point of cavitation; Spacetime Cavitation.
2. The region of spacetime where cavitation occurs generally, but not necessarily, responds by taking the shape of a rotating spiral. The non-flat shape of these spirals manifest as gravitation in much the same way that spacetime curvature resulting from the presence of mass also produces gravity.
3. Matter (usually hydrogen) produced as a byproduct of cavitation, responds to the gravitational influences of locally curved spacetime, naturally collecting within the trenches of the underlying spirals (the spiral arms), where it begins to coalesce into stars. As the stars continue to grow, they produce areas of increased spacetime curvature - localized Gravity Wells - that continue to accelerate their own formation and the birth of Solar Systems.
4. The birth of new galaxies, encompassing the initial Spacetime Cavitation event, production of matter, and continuing to the point where stars begin to form in earnest, typically spans a period of 200 million years.
5. Matter continues to follow the gravitational trail from the outer regions of galaxies to eventually form one or more black holes at their centers.

To view the next post in this Dark Matter series, click here.

13) Dark Matter: Sources of Natural Gravitation

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

There are two gravitational conditions. First is the common notion of Relativistic gravitation, which tells us that gravity is a result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass. This form of gravity is most familiar to us. When we look up at the night sky, we are peering at the stars from deep within the earth’s Gravity Well, which also happens to be fairly deep within the Sun’s Gravity Well.

Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion, Einstein’s General Relativity, and even Newtonian Gravitation all provide good frameworks for understanding what we see in the skies, especially when it comes to the behavior of nearby celestial objects like the planets in our Solar System.

However, applying what we have learned about gravitation to our observations of other galaxies, especially spiral galaxies, we find that they do not seem to behave as we expect. As we have discussed at length, there simply isn’t enough visible matter within them to account for their ability to hold their shapes as they rotate. We can also reasonably conclude that since this phenomena is at work in virtually every other galaxy we observe, the same conditions almost certainly apply to our own Milky Way Galaxy as well.

If we back up for a moment and recall our earlier discussions about Dark Energy and Universal Expansion, we know that the Universe is expanding at an ever-increasing rate; yet our galaxy, which is usually estimated to be around 13 billion years old, isn’t stretching. It appears to rotating happily along, just like the other spiral galaxies we see in the skies.

This means that the galaxies seem to be, somehow, exempt from Universal Expansion, except for the fact that they are drifting away from one another. Internally, they hold together quite well. How could that be? Does the presence of matter somehow cancel the effects of Dark Energy? My guess is that it does not. The presence of matter is certainly related, but as a symptom more than a cause. Here’s how.

In my post on Galaxy Formation and Spacetime Stress, I briefly discussed the question of how substances and objects respond to stress. One of my analogies used water cavitation as an example of how something that is stable under one set of conditions, can break down when pressed beyond certain boundaries or tolerances. I concluded that post with a question: Is it possible that spacetime itself could be susceptible to the stresses of Universal Expansion?

I believe that it must be. Indeed, the enormous stresses of Universal Expansion likely manifests in at least two important ways. One relates to gravitation, and the other relates to the origins of matter.

First, I submit that under the tremendous stress of Universal Expansion, spacetime itself reacts. There may not be a good word with which to label this event. Perhaps we could say that spacetime tears, or collapses, or cavitates. I think that the closest match is cavitation - that spacetime itself distorts and curves into non-flat regions. As we already know, Gravity Wells are said to be regions of curved spacetime. Under Universal Expansion, this curvature exhibits the effects of gravitation (it is non-flat), but without any mass to account for it. Sound familiar?

To briefly summarize this part of the equation, let us say that there are two fundamental sources of natural gravitation, as follows:

1. Gravitation that results from the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass (this generally occurs on smaller scales).
2. Gravitation caused by the deformation of spacetime resulting from Universal Expansion (this generally occurs on larger scales).

This understanding of gravitation constitutes half of what I believe to be a high-level, but complete explanation for Dark Matter. Essentially, galaxies begin as regions of Spacetime Cavitation resulting from Universal Expansion, which often take on whirlpool-like shapes.

Since newly formed galaxies are a result of cavitation, their structures are maintained via the combination of Spacetime Cavitation Gravitation and Mass Gravitation, where, on smaller scales such as solar systems, gravitation is based on mass (spacetime curvature resulting from the presence of mass), but on the larger scales of galaxies, structure is maintained within the underlying, curved Spacetime fabric (spacetime curvature caused by cavitation). In other words, visible matter rests upon the non-flat, preexisting Spacetime structures resulting from cavitation, like bits of Styrofoam floating upon a whirlpool of water draining from a kitchen sink. This removes the apparent discrepancy between galaxy structure and the insufficient mass to account for it; and further removes the need for Dark Matter altogether (unless we redefine Dark Matter itself as merely a vacuum of Spacetime, which may be useful, but more on this later).

This means that galaxies could be more accurately thought of as regions of curved spacetime - enormous Gravity Wells - rather than as collections of matter (we will discuss how matter plays into this in the next post). The relatively even distribution of galaxies throughout the observable Universe is unlikely to be a quirk of the Big Bang. I submit that galaxies simply form where the spacetime fabric breaks down (cavitates) at points of extreme stress, most likely as a result of Universal Expansion, in a way very analogous to how gasses form in water when decompressed.

Interestingly, astronomers have discovered an object in space that directly supports this hypotheses, which was written about in a BBC News article in February, 2005. The article discusses a region of space that possesses the form and structure of a rotating galaxy, but without stars. Instead, the region is filled with hydrogen - a hydrogen disc. I will discuss the importance of this discovery, and its particular relevance to Dark Matter in the next post.

A quick note: The star-less galaxy above was discovered several years after I formed the Dark Matter hypotheses discussed in this blog series. When I happened across the article, which discusses the presence of an unmistakable galactic structure containing virtually nothing except hydrogen, it aligned so perfectly with my hypotheses that I was astounded. I had prior, no expectation or hope that such direct and supporting evidence would surface in my lifetime. As we will discuss in the next post, the presence of hydrogen in this star-less galaxy is key and critical to the completion of the Dark Matter question.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

12) Dark Matter: Mass/Energy Equivalence

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

We should remember that in every scenario where a substance or object succumbs to stress in a way that changes its nature (as discussed in the previous post), the principles of mass/energy equivalence remain in play, as do those of mass/energy conservation. For instance, the sun’s nuclear furnace works by compressing hydrogen atoms into helium (although, not quite so directly), resulting in a loss of mass in the form of energy. But, using the handy equation, E = mc², we can account for the mass of the original hydrogen atoms even after this fusion takes place.

It is important to understand something else about mass/energy equivalence too, which is that it does not imply that mass and energy can be converted between states in some trivial way; it says that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. One way of thinking about this is to consider unit of measure conversions: one gallon of liquid is equal to 3.785 liters. Although this analogy is far from perfect (it doesn’t entirely hold up since mass and energy are not the same things), it does provide a decent insight into what mass/energy equivalence communicates. In a sense, they are two measures of the same quantity. Furthermore, within a closed system, mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

Oddly, the principles of conservation of mass and energy are part of the supporting evidence for a Big Bang – they imply that everything that is now, must have always existed. The only thing we can assume then, is that all matter in the Universe must have existed within the singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Part of my intent here, of course, is to show that this is probably not true (and, given the current subject, I must point out that my use of the word probably is non-scientific).

So, where does this leave us? Throughout the many posts of this series on Dark Matter, we’ve talked about Gravity Wells, Gravity Bowls, the expanding Universe (Dark Energy), the rigidity of spacetime, E = mc², and now, stresses and the conservation of mass/energy. What does it all add up to? To find out, we must add a final piece to the puzzle.

To view the next post in this series, click here.

11) Dark Matter: Galaxy Formation and Spacetime Stress

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

---

In the previous post, I discussed some of the oddities revealed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image. Specifically, the strange occurrence of what appear to be galaxies of vastly different ages occupying the same regions of space, within what is believed to be a snapshot of the early Universe itself (or, at least part of it). At the end of that post, I concluded that the most straightforward solution to this mystery lies in the likelihood that these galaxies formed in place (at their relative positions) as a result of something other than the Big Bang. The next question is, if the matter from which these galaxies were formed did not originate from the Big Bang, then where did it come from? And, what triggered their formation?

Let us think about the rigidity of space and Universal expansion again. As we discussed in a prior post, spacetime is incredibly rigid, but it expands nonetheless. And, despite this unrelenting and ever-accelerating expansion, the matter within it condenses into Galaxies rather than evaporating into space. Strange. Perhaps another analogy would be useful here.

Imagine taking a typical balloon filled with air, and then drawing several quarter-sized circles on it (the circles will be our galaxies).  If we then let the air out of the balloon, the circles will get smaller and move closer together until they become a cluster of small dots like Cheerios.

Now, what if we refill the balloon? As the balloon grows in size, the circles will expand away from one another in much the same way that galaxies in the observable Universe do. Interestingly, as this happens there will be no apparent central point away from which the circles move; instead, they will all simply drift away from one another.

Actually, the central point could be the center of the balloon, but this analogy is meant to be reflected by the balloon’s surface.

This analogy is quite good for conceptualizing Universal Expansion, except for one problem: as the balloon swells in size, the circles also enlarge. Conversely, galaxies do not grow as the Universe expands. Imagine blowing up this same balloon, but rather than the circles growing as the balloon gets larger, they move away from one another but remain the same size or even shrink.

Counter-intuitive, to say the least.

Since we have seen that familiar terms such as warping, stretching and bending can be applied to Spacetime (think Gravity Wells), we may wonder whether other physical attributes can also be applied, if only in metaphor. We know, for instance, that there are a couple ways to make water boil. One is to heat it up, but another is to subject it to near-zero pressure. If water is subjected to a near-perfect vacuum, it will begin to boil as the oxygen and hydrogen within it evaporate into gas. So, what appears to be a very stable substance under normal environmental conditions (at least in the typical kitchen), can be placed under more extreme conditions that cause it to break down in some way.

If you place the palms of your hands together so that they form a somewhat airtight seal and then cup them, you will experience the suction of air as the pressure between your palms drops below the pressure of the surrounding area. Of course, no matter how hard you try, you will be unable to produce a complete vacuum - or even a marginally strong one.

Yet, there are more extreme conditions under which cavitation occurs in more noticeable, and in some cases, damaging ways; such as on propellers and in pumps. Part of the trick to making submarines stealthy, for instance, lies in minimizing cavitation that can result when propeller blades slice through water at high speeds. Low pressure builds on the backside of the propellers, which produces noisy bubbles – a bad thing if you hope to remain undetected.

Could there be a counterpart to this in the realms of spacetime? Everything has boundaries at which it will succumb to stress and begin behaving outside of what we may think of as its typical character. Even a simple piece of steel will break if subjected to a greater force than it can withstand. Burning wood produces heat energy, but also destroys the wood. Compressing matter beyond a certain point results in fusion. In truth, the natural behavior of any substance is as much a function of environment as anything intrinsic.

So, in any case and for any substance, the characteristics of an object are changed by pressing it beyond certain limits - by changing its environment. Now, how would this apply to Universal expansion? What happens when something as incomprehensibly stiff as spacetime is eternally and relentlessly stretched? Can the fabric of space - spacetime itself - be stressed? And if so, what would happen?

To view the next post in this series, click here.

10) Dark Matter: Odd Galactic Neighborhoods

This is a continuing discussion on the topic of Dark Matter. To view the previous post, click here. To go to the beginning of the series, click here.

A quick comment before continuing
This section can be safely skipped if you like. Just scroll down to the start of the actual article below the horizontal line.

I’ve searched around the web here and there on matters related to physics, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, etc. You have probably done the same or you would not be reading this page. Along the way I’ve found that there are many types of people, and many approaches to attempting to make sense of the realities of life and the Universe. As for me, after years of toil, I have finally adopted what seems to be a reasonable guiding principle for this sort of thing, which is that ideas and beliefs should generally align with observable data.

The prophet, Nahum (from the Bible), said that the clouds are the dust of God’s feet. After living for a number of years on this planet - and attempting to make some sense of it myself - I have concluded that Nahum was mistaken. There are certainly dust clouds here and there, but the ones I believe Nahum was referring to certainly aren’t made of dust. And, even if they were, it's seems odd that even though these clouds are plainly visible, God's feet somehow, are not. Interestingly, I know of more than a few individuals who would disagree with me.

In truth, I am still somewhat amazed at how common it is for people to insist that facts bend to match a given hypothesis or cherished belief rather than the other way around. So, before continuing, I should plainly state that brushing aside inconvenient facts because they do not support a treasured idea is of absolutely no value. It's certainly not what I intend to do here, even to the slightest degree, either in favor of my own hypotheses or against any other (think, the Big Bang).

Having said this, when a hypothesis or theory begins to gain ground and hold its own for a period of time, any new evidence that looks as if it may contradict it must be given patient scrutiny. After all, if a theory successfully answers 100 questions, but cannot answer the 101st, it is certainly worth taking a closer look before deciding the theory is wrong.

In my opinion, such is the case with Big Bang theory. It has held up for quite a while; longer than I would have expected (and longer than it should have, in my humble opinion). Indeed, it does answer many questions. But, because of this, some of the more inconvenient questions that it does not adequately answer are rarely seen as sufficient cause to doubt it.

I understand and appreciate the wisdom in that. But, sooner or later we have to find resolution. Are the questions wrong? Are our observations incorrect? Have we overlooked something? Or, could there a better explanation, a better theory?

---

If there isn't enough observable matter within a given galaxy to account for the fact that it does not simply fall apart, then what explanation (other than Dark Matter) is there for its formation? Is it possible that the galaxies formed in place, at their relative positions within the Universe, rather than being part of the debris field of some enormous explosion (the Big Bang)? It seems worth considering. Of course, if we do consider it, we must then ask where all the matter did come from.

Indeed we do.

For some, this question is enough in itself to dismiss any argument against the Big Bang altogether. Yet, I must hold out that to the open-minded, considering this question is no less sensible than believing that all the matter in the Universe originated from a singularity.

Speculation like this leads to many valid questions, not the least of which being, "What about all the other supporting evidence for the Big Bang?" A fair question to be sure, but that's what we're doing here; we're attempting to see if another hypothesis matches that evidence as well, or even better. Maybe there isn't one, but maybe there is. So, let us state the question a little more clearly: If there was no Big Bang, where did all the matter in the Universe come from?

Let us begin by considering the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image, which shows thousands of distant galaxies glowing faintly against a deep-black backdrop. Oddly, the image seems rather unremarkable until you realize that these aren't just any galaxies - they are the most distant galaxies we have been able to photograph to date. In fact, if you haven't looked into it, click on the link above to learn more - it is well worth the time.

The actual distance to the galaxies in this image is not entirely straightforward. Yes, it took 13.2 billion years for the light we are now receiving from them to reach us, but the Universe has been expanding all along too. What's more, that expansion has, as far as we can tell, been accelerating the whole time as well. So, rather than attempt to establish an actual distance (which would add only marginal value to our discussion anyway), let's settle on the fact that they are ancient, and that we have yet to glimpse anything farther away. Perhaps even more importantly with respect to this discussion, is that this photograph is believed by many to show the galaxies as they were when the entire Universe was less than one billion years old (about 800 million years). I happen, not to agree, but won't expound upon the reasons until later.

In light of this, a couple things immediately leap out. First, as expected, this image appears to contain hundreds of young galaxies - that is, galaxies with shapes, colors and sizes to indicate that they were indeed captured during the early years of their formation. No surprise there. But, there are also what appear to be very mature galaxies, such as, HUDF-JD2 and others in the same region. This is odd indeed. Why would galaxies from largely the same region, and such an early period in the history of the Universe differ so greatly?

One possibility is that the more mature galaxies aren't as far away as they seem. We are not able to know for sure as yet, but astronomers believe they are. There is also the possibility that these galaxies just happened to have a larger starting mass than their neighbors, which could have accelerated their formation, in which case they are not older, but only further developed. This actually strikes me as quite plausible too.

But, what if they are older? How could galaxies from what appears to be the same region of space be of such vastly different ages? Are they drifters, just passing through the neighborhood? The evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Their redshifts, for instance, suggest that they are native to the regions where they appear.

The only explanation for this phenomenon having any degree of elegance is that they formed in place, but at different times. The only difficulty with this otherwise simple solution is the Big Bang. If all of these galaxies, old and new, are products of the same Big Bang event, then we have a disconnect - since we would naturally and quite reasonably expect all of them to be about the same age. On the other hand, if the galaxies formed place (at their relative positions) as a result of some other cause, then the mystery becomes....less mysterious - we need only discover what triggered their formation. And, fortunately, this may not be a difficult puzzle to solve at all.

To see the next post in this series, click here.