Hi Joe;
Great post ! Very thought-provoking (at least, for me.
)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joe_smith
Do you think this data fits in the cyclic model of the universe as put forth by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok?,
|
I'm sure someone will think up a plausible reason for the apparent stationary growth of Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) observed. However, it is certainly intriguing.
I have a soft spot for the Steinhardt–Turok model, for the large scale picture, because it incorporates modern M-Theory and Chaotic dynamics thinking. I have a feeling this is a good direction for Science to explore for a while. The static growth at the galaxy level, may loosely support the 'lull' between cycles of expansion and contraction. However the S-T Theory is still a theory, with very little other clear, empirical evidence supporting it.
In this case, there are two scales, and confined focuses in action here:
i) growth of a set of BCGs at the galaxy end of the scale and;
ii) a narrowly constrained galaxy type (BCGs only).
I'd think it would be a bit early to 'toss the baby out with the bathwater', on these bases alone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joe_smith
is it more proof for their model or not?
|
I would say that there is no direct disproof evident here, for the classical model.
The theories can co-exist until evidence appears, disproving one or the other.
I'm not sure we could ever provide substantial evidence for the cyclic model by making observations spanning (backwards) over only 7 billion years … what we need is evidence which spans back past 13.75 billion years, or some good supportive evidence of the validity of Strings and Ms.
(Ie: I don't think observations made in the middle of a cycle, will ever tell us much about the initial or final defining states of that cycle).
My 2 cents worth, anyway.
Cheers