Galaxy Left Behind?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Scott Myers, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    267
    Gentlemen, Ladies,

    MS 2143.4+0704 is 8,141,008 Mpc's away, but has nearly the same recessional velocity as MS 1458.8+2249 which is only 965 Mpc's away. Its velocity should be much greater than 300Km/s (EDIT: 300,000 Km/s) (faster than the speed of light) considering its estimated distance, applying the basic Hubble Constant, but it’s recessional velocity is much, much slower than numerous objects that are estimated to be a lot closer to us, or than it should be with our applied math. We have estimated the velocity at only 62,818 km/s.

    Does anyone care to speculate why the universe seems to have left this galaxy behind? What is (or might be) unique about this galaxy?
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Perhaps the inhabitants residing in that galaxy were wanting to try to seperate themselves from the other galaxies that they were not compatable with any longer and wanted to try it on their own.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Citation?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,831
    Hmmm, the galaxy in question is 26 billion ly away? If my math is right then this galaxy is almost twice as old as the age of the universe? That is a bit of a problem, I think....
     
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Your math is not right.

    The distance to an object that we can see can be measured in many different ways. Many of these ways provide distances that are longer than the time that light has been traveling from that object to us because of cosmological expansion.

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#MD
     
  9. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    267
    Here is the published data. The one cited is near the bottom of the list, about one page up from the last. The other one mentioned is not too far from there on the list. MS 2143.4+0704 is severely out of place, or sync, no?

    http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/NED0D/NED.4D.html
     
  10. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,826
    lol

    interdimensional galactic transfer to our own universe.

    Ok cheesecakes, the data says the following for object MS 2143.4+0704 also known as IAU = 2145+073 (source : http://chjaa.org/Papers_Accepted/08014_wuzhongzu_v2.pdf)

    Object: 2143.4+0704
    M-m Mag: 40.48 ( The magnitude derived from observations at an infrared wavelength of 5 microns. )
    err mag: unknown
    D(L) Mpc: 8141008 ( Luminocity Distance Modulus in Megaparsecs ) = 2.6*10^13 light years = D(L)
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::so D = D(L)/ (1+z) = 8141008 / (1 + 0.23700) = 6581251.414 Mpc = 2.03076199 × 10^29 m > 2.6 x 10^26 m I believe the problem with calculation is Hubble's Law not incorporated, am I right?
    Method: BL Lac M ( extragalactic active galactic nucleus: blazar (very compact quasar) )
    ?: z = 0.23700 ( redshift ... z is much smaller than 1 ... or this is not redshift?, a 1 would be 10 billion light years away )
    RA J2000: 21:45:52.3
    Dec J2000: +07:19:27.2
    GLON: 063.6
    GLAT: -33.4
    V Helio z Km/s: 62818

    from another source data on: 2143.4+0704
    (link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9706028.pdf)

    I = 17.13
    redshift = 0.237
    k corr = 0.14
    m-M = 41.01
    M I a = −24.0
    M R b = −23.3
    M V b = −22.7
    r e (kpc) = 9.0

    another data source on: 2143.4+0704
    (source : http://chjaa.org/Papers_Accepted/08014_wuzhongzu_v2.pdf)

    redshift = 0.237
    intrinsic synchrotron peak frequency = 13.56
    observed peak luminosity (erg s -1) = 44.67
    jet power (erg s -1) = 42.99
    Doppler factor = 2.53
    R magnitude of host galaxy = 17.42
    black hole mass in units of solar mass = 8.52
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2012
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It does seem odd.
     
  12. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Looks to me like there's an entry error in your chart. Nothing mentioned in this paper concerning this elliptical.
    HST Imaging of the Host Galaxies of Three X-Ray Selected BLLacertae Objects1
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9706028.pdf
    or
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/491/1/146/
     
  13. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    267
    Nice research

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I’ll keep your links for future pondering.

    The thing is; Hubble's Law is usually predictive of what redshifts should be expected at certain distances from the observer (us), and the apparent velocities attributed. Hubble’s Law is perpetually being adjusted by direct observation, so it is being massaged to fit redshifts we have found. Though the number is good for prediction in most cases within reasonable margins, this (MS 2143.4+0704) does not fit into our ideas about what we should expect from the distance vs. redshift correlation.

    Is there anything else we can know about the object. I've never heard of this anomoly, so I thought you guys might come up with some good ideas. Interdimensional Galactic insertion included

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Love it
     
  14. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    If the galaxy has an unusually large proper motion with respect to us, then perhaps it's not been compensated for.
     
  15. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    267
    These are excellent. Thank You.

    The galaxy is mentioned, but maybe these papers have not directly stated the fact that this one galaxy is so far out of the predictions for recessional velocity. I will, or someone else can, do the math to predict what velocity we should expect at such distances. I merely projected that it is far enough away that it should exceed the speed of light easily by applying the Hubble Constant.

    I wondered as well about errors in the published data, but as you can see youreyes’s data sets both agree with the one I found.

    Hmmmmmmmm
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You can find the chart and paper in the Level 5 Extragalactic Database. Maybe you might want to ask them about it?
    http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/comment.html
    Bruce
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Who predicted this? 8,141,008 Mpc = 2.6E13 light years. 26 trillion light years. 578 * > the radius of the observable universe. Huh? The good idea is it's most likely a bad entry. WMAP predicts Hubble's Law to a very small error bar.
     
  18. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    267
    I will question the "ask an astronomer" page through NASA and get back with you. I heard it usually takes a week or two, but this is worth knowing I think. I think we are within a half a percent of the Hubble Constant, so yes, this is either a major error, or just a strange object with unusual motion.
     
  19. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Merry Christmas Scott. Recently I asked a question at WMAP and they answered the next day.
     
  20. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    267
    Merry Christmas to you as well Bruce, and thank you.

    I posed the question very much like my original post here, but with a link to the data set. I'll report back with their response.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,300
    What math are you all using? Algebra.


    My the "force be with you"
     
  22. Lightingbird Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    Did the OP get a response yet?
     
  23. Scott Myers Newbie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    267
    I did not get a reply yet. I got the confirmation email that they received my question is all. I'll keep you all posted.
     

Share This Page