Starship Asterisk*

Leonard Susskind, in his book The Cosmic Landscape, wrote the following, p 325:

We can only look on helplessly as the heat engulfs you. Soon your precious body fluids will begin to boil and then vaporize. It will become so hot the veiy atoms of your being will be torn apart. But it is foretold that eventually you will be returned to us in a vaporous form of pure light and radiance.

But have no fear. You will pass to the other side safely and without pain. In your present form you will be lost to us forever, never to communicate again, at least not unless we make the crossing ourselves. But, my friend, from your place, you will have no trouble seeing us as we continue on without you. Good luck.

A story of martyrdom and resurrection? A man of the cloth comforting the martyr before the auto-da-fé? The crossing of the veil that separates the living from the dead? Not at all: it is the imaginary, but entirely possible, briefing of a future star traveler, curious and brave enough to enter a giant black hole and to cross its horizon. Not a briefing by a chaplain but by the starship’s resident theoretical physicist.

The excerpt above is not the first time I have read about a human astronaut crossing the event horizon of a black hole. Others have written more or less the same.

1) To my way of thinking, the astronaut would be dead long before the event horizon was crossed, the intense gravity playing havoc with the circulatory and respiratory systems and organ functions in general.

2) Another point I find difficult to accept is that once the astronaut crosses the event horizon, and persumably right up to the time the singularity itself is approached, the astronaut could still see on the other side of the event horizon. See what? Yes, light from the outside would continue to stream in, but like anything else (including the astronaut), it would be distorted and compacted and spaghettified such that any images would be unrecognizable.

If I am wrong about 1) and 2), why is the excerpt correct?

I don't believe it is correct, you also didn't mention the high levels of radiation and bits of matter traveling near c bound at the accretion disk.

The bit about spaghettification is not necessarily correct either. Spaghettification is a result of the force of Gravity being stronger at you toes than your head (your toes are closer the the centre of the Earth - or the black hole). If the black hole is sufficiently large, this difference is negligible at the event horizon - but it increases steadily the closer you get to the singularity.

RJ Emery wrote:The excerpt above is not the first time I have read about a human astronaut crossing the event horizon of a black hole. Others have written more or less the same.

1) To my way of thinking, the astronaut would be dead long before the event horizon was crossed, the intense gravity playing havoc with the circulatory and respiratory systems and organ functions in general.

It strongly depends on the size of the black hole that you're dealing with. Somewhat counterintuitively, the smaller the black hole, the more dangerous it is, due to tidal forces that will 'spaghettify' you. A stellar-mass black hole will have you dead and in pieces long before you reach the event horizon, whereas a million-solar-mass supermassive black hole has such weak tidal effects at its event horizon that you could cross it and not realize you'd just passed the point of no return.

I remember doing all the math behind this once, but maybe it wasn't in this forum...

2) Another point I find difficult to accept is that once the astronaut crosses the event horizon, and persumably right up to the time the singularity itself is approached, the astronaut could still see on the other side of the event horizon. See what? Yes, light from the outside would continue to stream in, but like anything else (including the astronaut), it would be distorted and compacted and spaghettified such that any images would be unrecognizable.

The behaviour of light around black holes is really weird, and I've never actually worked through the math of it, though I've read several descriptions of what one would likely see. The visible sky apparently reaches a minimum angular size as you reach the event horizon (making it look like a small opening far over your head), but apparently this effect reverses itself as you continue to fall deeper into the hole, but the outside universe never again takes up more than half of your sky.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:I don't believe it is correct, you also didn't mention the high levels of radiation and bits of matter traveling near c bound at the accretion disk.

Bear in mind that not all black holes are going to have accretion disks. Some will end up in sparse areas of the galaxy, while others will clear their surroundings themselves.

Hello All

I thought you may find these links interesting?

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=150

A good rule to remember is this: for a black hole of mass "M" times the mass of the Sun, its size is 3xM measured in kilometres (km). So, a solar mass black hole has a Schwarzchild Radius of about 3 km. As a rough estimate, let's say that the general relativistic effects of a black hole become insignificant at about 1000 times the Schwarzchild radius. For a solar mass black hole, then, its gravitational effects are identical to the Sun (a solar mass star) once you're about 3x1000 km = 3000 km away from it. This is a much smaller distance than that between the Earth and the Sun, for instance, and it means that if the Sun were a black hole, the Earth would not change its orbit.

Let's run through the same exercise for a supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy. It has a mass of about 10 million solar masses, and so from the formula above it has a Schwarzchild radius of about 30 million kilometres. General relativistic effects are then only important within 1000x30 million kilometres, or in the inner 30 billion km of the Milky Way. Now, the solar system is about 6 billion km across, so you could fit 5 "solar systems" in the region around a supermassive black hole that general relativity must be accounted for

===========================================

The Swarm centre of our galaxy.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050128.html



At the Center of the Milky Way

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051023.html

Journey to the Center of the Galaxy
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970121.html

Explosions Discovered Near Galactic Center
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960228.html

Milky way churning out new stars at a furious pace

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14309

Some of the first data from a new orbiting infrared telescope are revealing that the Milky Way - and by analogy galaxies in general - is making new stars at a much more prolific pace than astronomers imagined.

The Galactic Center Radio Arc
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050403.html

What causes this unusual structure near the center of our Galaxy? The long parallel rays slanting across the top of the above radio image are known collectively as the Galactic Center Radio Arc and jut straight out from the Galactic plane

Dr. Skeptic wrote:
I don't believe it is correct, you also didn't mention the high levels of radiation and bits of matter traveling near c bound at the accretion disk.

Bear in mind that not all black holes are going to have accretion disks. Some will end up in sparse areas of the galaxy, while others will clear their surroundings themselves.

I was keeping the concept simple, It is highly unlikely that a BH would not have some matter orbiting, thus an accretion disk (using the term loosely) even if it is not as visible as the consuming of another star.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:I was keeping the concept simple, It is highly unlikely that a BH would not have some matter orbiting, thus an accretion disk (using the term loosely) even if it is not as visible as the consuming of another star.

I have always wondered what might exist in the great voids between the sheets of galaxies observed on large scales within the universe. I sometimes wonder if there are not multiple and/or supermassive black holes that have already consumed all matter within the space they occupy. Hence, they would have no accretion disk and no observable radiation.

At very high z, unusual phenomena and objects have been noted. Whatever events or processes that were in play at that point in time, their remnants should be all around us today, but so far we either don't see them or at least don't recognize them.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:

Dr. Skeptic wrote:
I don't believe it is correct, you also didn't mention the high levels of radiation and bits of matter traveling near c bound at the accretion disk.

Bear in mind that not all black holes are going to have accretion disks. Some will end up in sparse areas of the galaxy, while others will clear their surroundings themselves.

I was keeping the concept simple, It is highly unlikely that a BH would not have some matter orbiting, thus an accretion disk (using the term loosely) even if it is not as visible as the consuming of another star.

I've always thought that, without a fairly steady input of material into an accretion disk, it would be consumed or dispersed fairly quickly (well, in astrophysical terms of 'quickly' ), due to friction in the disk and the fact that there are no stable orbits within the ergosphere...

You have valid points and may apply somewhere, being more an exception that a standard, note that the voids of space are far from empty. If our sun didn't support a heliospere, the amount of new matter (which can be calculated by the static pressure limiting the size of the heliosphere), a BH would still generate enough heat and radiation creating an environment not fit for man nor machine in near proximity.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:You have valid points and may apply somewhere, being more an exception that a standard, note that the voids of space are far from empty. If our sun didn't support a heliospere, the amount of new matter (which can be calculated by the static pressure limiting the size of the heliosphere), a BH would still generate enough heat and radiation creating an environment not fit for man nor machine in near proximity.

To which voids of space are you referring?

The voids between galaxies that populate sheets do have gas pockets, but I am not aware of anything known that populates the space between the sheets.

The densities in the least populated areas of the universe are in the order of 0.001 H atoms per cubic meter, The average for the entire universe is about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter, the Milky Way, about 3 H atoms per cubic meter.

A BH in a lesser-populated area moving at a speed of "V" (300 km/s?) relative to interstellar matter with an average gravity field "g"*(4/3)*π*r3, could accrued enough matter to sustain a hostile environment near the EH.

Hello All

Re Link: What do you think?


Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

Using the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory, E. A. Valentijn and P. P. van der Werf recently detected huge amounts of molecular hydrogen (H2) in NGC 891 , an edge-on galaxy 30 million light-years away in Andromeda (Valentijn and van der Werf 1999). In their report, published in September 1999, they state that their result "matches well, the mass required to solve the problem of the missing mass of spiral galaxies." They conclude that the galaxy contains 5 to 15 times more molecular than atomic hydrogen. [For a second Internet news story on this discovery click here .]

We know that the H2 molecule produces about the same (non-Doppler) redshift as monoatomic hydrogen, but the number of H2 molecules is much larger. Because atomic and molecular hydrogen have an approximately homogenous distribution in the universe, this induces a non-Doppler redshift, which is proportional to the distance of the light source (just as for an apparently expanding universe, assumed with a Doppler interpretation).
The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.

With the new discovery, science can now have a logical and realistic description of nature, because we no longer have to speculate with such exotic hypotheses as WIMPs and "quark nuggets" to explain the missing matter in the universe.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

I skimmed this and it seems to make sense to me. Only, why would so many researchers overlook something like this?
There is most certainly more to the story, and I'm interested in hearing what others have to say on the topic..

Hello Wadsworth

They over looked H2 because they were looking for other atoms.

Most reseachers in the past were hooked on the Big Bang and there was the error because it gave them tunnel vision.

Its only in the last few years that new evidence and the ability to obtain the new evidence has come about.

Harry, thank you so much for posting that link.
I'm no scientist, just an interested observer, and have been having problems with the big bang theory for a while now. It's just always seemed too precarious to base a creation theory on (basically) one observation. When I was at school, I was taught that space was infinite and empty! So it seems unlikely to me that the only thing that could cause the red shift is that everything is moving away from us.
There is also the 'problem' of the other dimensions - another 7 is it?
These seem to be mostly ignored by science which - to my way of thinking - is a big mistake.
I'm not about to hand the creation back to religions but I think it has to explain everything and not conveniently ignore stuff that doesn't fit or that we can't get our heads around.

As for dark matter being some exotic stuff we've never come across and dark energy being a kind of anti gravity - well that sounds like guess work at best. It gives me the same feeling I got when I was told space was infinite!

Sorry if I've not been very scientific, (understatement of the year!)
I just say it like I see it.

Hi All

As as I have explained before the BB is not based on only one observation, there are three pillars:

1) The observed redshift of galaxies, which implies space is expanding

2) The observed CMB radiation, that shows that the Universe was once much hotter and denser than it is now. And incidently by exactly the right amount to make it the redshifted image of a time in the early Universe when atomic physics tells you that protons and electrons should be recombining to form hydrogen.

3) The observed ratio of the most simple elements. All of these fall out naturally if you assume that the universe was once a hot plasma where reactions can fuse hydrogen to helium and some lithium.

Of course each of these observations have others that back them up, and make it secure that we have got it right. For example when we look further out in redshift we see galaxies that look less and less like the ones nearby, their stars also have ages younger and younger than those nearby. That is pretty difficult to explain without them being younger objects, because of the light travel time.

The thing about the link is that it makes no sense, we see DM in spiral galaxies yes, but we also see it in elliptical galaxies and clusters of galaxies, where it is far too hot for molecular gas to exist. The gas in clusters is so hot that it is emitting at over 1 000 000 K. The spiral galaxy result as I explained elsewhere makes no sense either, I can except that H2 exists in galaxies, it has been seen, however it cant be responsible for a redshift. The densities of H2 implied by the study mentioned in the link are going to be comparable to those that are claimed to cause the redshift, if that was the case we should see evidence for this non gravitational redshift superimposed over the normal rotation curve, I've never seen this be found.

Hello Astro


You said

Of course each of these observations have others that back them up, and make it secure that we have got it right. For example when we look further out in redshift we see galaxies that look less and less like the ones nearby, their stars also have ages younger and younger than those nearby. That is pretty difficult to explain without them being younger objects, because of the light travel time.

That is not correct. I would like to see the evidence for that or the link that states that comment.

=====================================

Astro did you say you are doing a PHD

It is correct Harry

Here are a few examples:

A galaxy seen as it was 11Gyr ago, undergoing a star formation rate that is at least 10 times more than anything that has ever been observed in the nearby Universe.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/cloverleaf/

Or this abstract from a talk given at the AAS, the result of which is that there was much more star formation going on at a redshift of 1 than there is today. Clearly galaxies were not the same back then.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ba5a705841

Or these papers, these deal with the morphology density relationship, you should read up on this, its very interesting. The basic result is that if you look at clusters of galaxies at different redshifts they look different. Nearby clusters have a higher fraction of S0 (lenticular) and elliptical galaxies than distant ones, in distant clusters there is a higher fraction of spiral galaxies. The explanation is simple, the spiral galaxies are being converted into S0 and elliptical galaxies over time, through the mergers that are common in these dense environments.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... pe=ARTICLE
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403455
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... pe=ARTICLE

The first two are the same paper, one is located where you should be able to access it.

This work is very interesting, its on galaxies at a redshift of 2.5, the short version is that the galaxies seen at this redshift are much smaller and have ages about 2-4Gyr, consistent with them forming stars very rapidly after the BB (as is seen in the top link). This is in marked constrast to galaxies in the nearby universe which have ages of 10-12Gyr on average. Essentially it looks like these small galaxies at high z merge to form the big old ellipticals seen nearby.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/cosmology06/talks/stockton.pdf

There are many more, but you should be able to find them in the references contained in these examples.

Yes I am doing a PhD, I'm 2/3rds of the way through, looking at things like those above and of course GCs.

Thanks for the links and explanation Astro.

So, if Harry's aformentioned H2 (redshift) theory were correct, we would expect to see similarly evolved galaxies at every redshift, or at the very least, a uniform distribution of evolution at every redshift. This is obviously not what is observed.

Ok, that rules out the redshift theory, but as for the DM theory, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we measure (suspected) DM in distant galaxies by how much lensing the galaxy produces? If your GC's are emitting gas that hot, how far out radially must you be before it is cool enough for molecular H2 to form?

Also:

The densities of H2 implied by the study mentioned in the link are going to be comparable to those that are claimed to cause the redshift, if that was the case we should see evidence for this non gravitational redshift superimposed over the normal rotation curve

Do you mean, if that amount of H2 existed in stellar space we would see quicker orbital decay? What is this normal rotation curve?

And.. H1 IS an unstable atom correct? so why would it be expected to exist instead of H2?


Gratis!

Ok, that rules out the redshift theory, but as for the DM theory, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we measure (suspected) DM in distant galaxies by how much lensing the galaxy produces? If your GC's are emitting gas that hot, how far out radially must you be before it is cool enough for molecular H2 to form?

Thats a good question, simple answer is I'm not sure. It probably doesn't matter though, galaxy clusters contain high temperature X-Ray gas to at least their virial radius, any gravitational arcs within this region must be being caused by the mass contained within them. The X-Ray gas and luminous matter we see within this radius is not sufficient to explain the gravity, the temperature is too high for it to be molecular H2, so it must be something else.

Do you mean, if that amount of H2 existed in stellar space we would see quicker orbital decay? What is this normal rotation curve?

What I mean is that the densities of H2 that are needed to use H2 to explain DM in spiral galaxies are probably very high, so that there must be many atoms between us and the spiral arms of the galaxy (similar to the amounts between us and distant galaxies that the article claims inroduces a non doppler redshift). We see rotation curves that are essentially flat (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem ) now we know that H2 tends to bunch into clouds, from which stars form. If these tight clouds of H2 lie in the plane of the galaxy they should affect the measured rotation curve, (because the article says H2 causes redshift), so the rotation curve shouldnt be flat, it should have bumps in it. More than that, because the H2 only causes redshift not blueshift, the bumps would always be in the same direction. This should be very easy to spot in galaxy.

And.. H1 IS an unstable atom correct? so why would it be expected to exist instead of H2?

H2 is simply 2 H atoms bonded, but the bond is weak, it doesnt take much energy to break it, so the diffuse ultraviolet emission around galaxies (from the stars) is enough to break the bond apart. People have done simulations of the amount of ultra violet photons emitted since the BB and find it is essentially enough to separate (and then ionise) all of the hydrogen not shielded in dust clouds. H2 is more stable but is prevented from forming in large quantities by the UV and cosmic ray fluxes.

Hello All

Thank you Astro for the links, I will read them and get back to you. Some I have already read. I will still re-read them.

We had a dog named astro, smart dog. It was a mini boxer thing.

Ok, back onto the subject. See you soon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Astro

I have read the links

and they do not support

Of course each of these observations have others that back them up, and make it secure that we have got it right. For example when we look further out in redshift we see galaxies that look less and less like the ones nearby, their stars also have ages younger and younger than those nearby. That is pretty difficult to explain without them being younger objects, because of the light travel time.

They may suggest the issue. but! there is not enough evidence to support it.

============================================

They started their research by assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct.

They speak of an early universe before they have evidence to support it.

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/cloverleaf/

A furious spawning of the equivalent of 1,000 Suns per year in a distant galaxy dubbed the Cloverleaf may be typical of galaxies in the early Universe, the scientists say.

I can see tunnel vision here big time.

Call me crazy harry if you wish. but I will not follow ideas that cannot stand up.
============================================



http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040120.html
=========================================

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsde ... s/2006/12/
NASA's Hubble Finds Hundreds of Young Galaxies in Early Universe

Read this link:

I just cannot believe how the astronomers in the above link discover 500 galaxies in a small area and say that they formed in 1 billion years so as to confirm the Big Bang. What crap.

===========================================
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsde ... s/2006/44/

Again,,,,,,,,,,,,,It bugs me to read papers that are directed to some conclusions without evidence.

============================================

This article is one of the worst I've ever read : http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/cloverleaf/

All they have actually got is a large amount of hot HCN. From this they have inferred everything else they talk about. I haven't got time to explain precisely what I'm talking about as I'm at work on my lunch break. But I'll post more this evening.

I think Harry and I are on similar wavelengths. (and I'm sure he'll correct me if not!) It's not that I want to disprove anything in particular, it's just that alot of what I read that is just not what it porports to be. i.e. Proof!

Laters,
Andy

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsde ... s/2006/12/
NASA's Hubble Finds Hundreds of Young Galaxies in Early Universe

Read this link:

I just cannot believe how the astronomers in the above link discover 500 galaxies in a small area and say that they formed in 1 billion years so as to confirm the Big Bang. What crap.

Harry I have explained this once or twice before but I will try again.

How is it difficult to believe lots of things can form simulataneously? Please try to explain logically why this cannot be. The galaxies in that image each formed AT THE SAME TIME, if each of them takes 1Gyr year to form and they each form individually of course it makes sense that you can form many. Your argument is similar to saying "look at all the grains of sand in the world, there are too many to form in only 4 Gyr", its clearly nonsense, your implying that galaxies form one at a time. It would make sense if we expected that large galaxies break up into small galaxies, in this case you have to form the big ones first then split them apart. But of course this is not what happens.

Another important point about that article, look at the galaxies, the most distant ones, the ones in the box to the right, not the big ones which are in the foreground. Do any of them look like nearby galaxies? No they don't, they are much smaller than nearby galaxies, this is related to the fact that there are so many of them, these little proto-galaxies will merge to form the bigger galaxies we see today, which is why there are so many of them. Of course the fact that the Universe was much smaller and more dense back then also has something to do with it.

I'd be interested to know how you expain the obove observations, smaller galaxies, that don't look like ones seen today, arranged much more densely than today. I find it difficult to come up with a steady state explanation for that one.


Regarding this:

They started their research by assuming that the Big Bang theory is correct.

They speak of an early universe before they have evidence to support it.

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/cloverleaf/
Quote:
A furious spawning of the equivalent of 1,000 Suns per year in a distant galaxy dubbed the Cloverleaf may be typical of galaxies in the early Universe, the scientists say.

You asked for evidence that the distant Universe looks different to the nearby one. Well there you go it looks different, . I could have given you this link

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0606110

Star formation rates are different over time, not a suprise in BB cosmology. A very big problem for the steady state.


You also ignore all of this evidence that shows changes in galaxies over redshift.

Or this abstract from a talk given at the AAS, the result of which is that there was much more star formation going on at a redshift of 1 than there is today. Clearly galaxies were not the same back then.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ba5a705841

Or these papers, these deal with the morphology density relationship, you should read up on this, its very interesting. The basic result is that if you look at clusters of galaxies at different redshifts they look different. Nearby clusters have a higher fraction of S0 (lenticular) and elliptical galaxies than distant ones, in distant clusters there is a higher fraction of spiral galaxies. The explanation is simple, the spiral galaxies are being converted into S0 and elliptical galaxies over time, through the mergers that are common in these dense environments.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... pe=ARTICLE
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0403455
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... pe=ARTICLE

The first two are the same paper, one is located where you should be able to access it.

This work is very interesting, its on galaxies at a redshift of 2.5, the short version is that the galaxies seen at this redshift are much smaller and have ages about 2-4Gyr, consistent with them forming stars very rapidly after the BB (as is seen in the top link). This is in marked constrast to galaxies in the nearby universe which have ages of 10-12Gyr on average. Essentially it looks like these small galaxies at high z merge to form the big old ellipticals seen nearby.
http://www.dur.ac.uk/cosmology06/talks/stockton.pdf

I really don't see any logic to your objections, just a philiosophical objection. You haven't shown me one result that is incompatible with the BB. (Please don't post that list of "problems" we've wasted enough time trashing them.)

This article is one of the worst I've ever read : http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/cloverleaf/

Using the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope, the scientists found a huge quantity of dense interstellar gas -- the environment required for active star formation

Just because they have found the environment for star formation doesn’t mean that stars are actually forming.

A furious spawning of the equivalent of 1,000 Suns per year in a distant galaxy dubbed the Cloverleaf may be typical of galaxies in the early Universe.

Ok, now we have magically jumped from having an environment fit for star formation to a nice big ‘wow’ number. And if it ‘may be typical’ it may also be atypical so why bother mentioning it?

This is a rate of star formation more than 300 times greater than that in our own Milky Way and similar spiral galaxies…’

(ok, I don’t know these figures but I’m willing to take it as true)

and our discovery may provide important information about the formation and evolution of galaxies throughout the Universe

There’s that ‘may’ word again! And it implies the discovery is the star forming when all they’ve discovered is hot HCL.

In galaxies like the Milky Way, dense gas traced by HCN but composed mainly of hydrogen molecules is always associated with regions of active star formation.

I was under the impression that the very early galaxies (like the cloverleaf) were very different to the one we live in today so why make the comparison?

What is different about the Cloverleaf is the huge quantity of dense gas along with very powerful infrared radiation from the star formation

So there’s is nothing else that could possibly cause very powerful IR? What about the opposite – supernovas?

At the rate this galaxy is seen to be forming stars, that dense gas will be used up in only about 10 million years

Unproven that there is any star formation!!! (at least in this article)

In addition to giving astronomers a fascinating glimpse of a huge burst of star formation in the early Universe

What, saying it twice in quick succession means they don’t have to prove it?

I can’t be bothered quoting anymore but it continues on about the star formation, The thing is that it might all be completely true but the article only links to a glossary and has no citations. I see this article more as journalism than science.