The one galaxy theory

[mugaliens]

While reading about quasars, I had a crazy thought: What if there's actually just one galaxy, the Milky Way, and what we think we see as other galaxies is simply earlier or later versions of the Milky Way?

And the next thought is even wackier: And what if those time-shifted versions of the Milky Way can actually interact with one another? This would preserve observed galaxy collisions.

So in order for this to be true, we'd need to do something with time, as to allow for the non-adherence of causality.

[Celestial Mechanic]

While reading about quasars, I had a crazy thought: What if there's actually just one galaxy, the Milky Way, and what we think we see as other galaxies is simply earlier or later versions of the Milky Way?

An interesting idea, but ...

And the next thought is even wackier: And what if those time-shifted versions of the Milky Way can actually interact with one another? This would preserve observed galaxy collisions.

... it requires further and rather strained hypotheses in order to fit observations ...

So in order for this to be true, we'd need to do something with time, as to allow for the non-adherence of causality.

... some bordering on the absurd. You have thus refuted your own conjecture via reductio ad absurdum.

[Nowhere Man]

Images of tidal interactions between two galaxies pretty much shoot down the idea.

Fred

[OmahaWx]

From what we know do galaxies cycle through stages? like stars have stages, if not that would throw down the idea, because of all the different types of galaxies

[Tensor]

From what we know do galaxies cycle through stages? like stars have stages, if not that would throw down the idea, because of all the different types of galaxies

This should help

[Serenitude]

Images of tidal interactions between two galaxies pretty much shoot down the idea.

Fred

Yes, Hubble has some stunning collision images. I have one as my desktop background currently

[mugaliens]

Yes, Hubble has some stunning collision images. I have one as my desktop background currently

Do you have a good link to high-res (>=1280x1024) Hubble images, Serenitude?

Thanks!

[Serenitude]

I do! There are many beautiful images for your background pleasure here:

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/wallpaper/

Enjoy!

[Nowhere Man]

Also http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/

Heck, just go to http://hubblesite.org/gallery/

Fred

[triclon]

Galaxies come in many sizes and shapes. Do you think the mass of our galaxy would just change willy nilly?

[mugaliens]

Thanks, Nowhere Man!

[Nereid]

mugaliens, would you care to comment on CM's post (#2)?

More specifically, how is any aspect of the idea(s) presented in the OP testable, even if only in principle?

[KaiYeves]

That is a wierd thought. No offence. It's actually kind of cool, if all fantasy.

[sweetser]

Hello mugaliens:

We used to believe that there was one and only one galaxy, known to all as the Milky Way. In the Milky Way galaxy, there were things known as fuzzy stars. I believe it was none other than Hubble himself who was concerned about the fuzzy starts. What was different about the super sharp standard stars and these fuzzy ones? How could a star be fuzzy? This is the sort of question your proposal would need to address with precision.

Hubble the astronomer made an effort to study how far the fuzzy stars were (I am fuzzy on all the details of this particular science story, so those who know better, please correct me). I think what he did was look at the spectra of fuzzy stars. This is one of those amazing stories of physics. Heat up an element in a flame, you get specific lines in a spectrometer. The Swiss high school teacher Balmer guessed a formula that matched what was seen for hydrogen. Bohr developed a theory based on quantizing angular momentum that matched Balmer's formula. Take the spectra of hydrogen gas on the Earth, compare it to what is going on for the Sun, and it is the same!

I've never seen the atomic spectra of stars in the Milky Way. My guess is they are extremely close to what we get for the Sun. There will be some variation since our galaxy spins, but not much.

Imagine doing this, collecting spectra after spectra of stars in the Milky Way, they all looking the same. Note: this is not easy work! You have to isolate the light from one star, leaving not much light, then split it by taking the spectra, and measuring these smaller signals, all in a cold night, all without computers or electronics of any sort.

So you get this big batch of repetitive data, and then, wow, this one is red shifted (running away), and it turns out to be a fuzzy star. As telescopes got better, the fuzz was due to there being many stars in the same spot. The fuzz came from multiple stars all hanging out in the same place, just like the Milky Way. This story sounds solid to me, and I have no reason to go crazy :-)

A problem for your specific proposal is that the fuzzy stars are evenly distributed in space, yet the Milky Way galaxy is not. If the fuzzy stars were earlier versions of the Milky Way, we would expect them to be in the same plane as the Milky Way. Since that is not what we see, we get to file your idea under crazy (nothing wrong with that either, let the crazy ideas out).

doug

[redshifter]

If your theory is true, then the Milky Way has been in it's past a spiral, barred spiral, elliptical, and irregular galaxy, and has greatly varied in mass as well.

[John Mendenhall]

The idea violates Occam's razor. Multitudinous external galaxies are a neat, simple solution that fits all the observations.

edit: Also, see Doug above.

[Nereid]

mugaliens, are you going to answer the (direct, pertinent) questions (on the ATM idea you have presented, as presented)?

If so, when?

If not, do you retract those ATM ideas?

Anyway, it seems you have written many BAUT posts since 30 August; perhaps it's time to write more here?

[mugaliens]

An interesting idea, but ...

... it requires further and rather strained hypotheses in order to fit observations ...

... some bordering on the absurd. You have thus refuted your own conjecture via reductio ad absurdum.

Ok, first, I don't actually believe this concept myself. I do believe there are many other galaxies out there.

However, it was an exercise in thought, so I'll follow it as a thought experiement.

Consider the following:

1. If one is standing on a plain, one might walk around, see the surrounding area, and assume that the immediately surrounding world is flat.

2. One might see the tops of other plains, and conclude by direct observation that all of the world is flat.

3. But one might also be on a round world, full of numerous plains, hills, valleys, mountain peaks, etc., which all but the plains might be beyond visibility (due to one's height, and beyond the ability to directly observe them).

If so, one might conclude that the universe is relatively flat. Yet there are indicators that the universe may not be as flat as we think. Everything from accelerating expansion to the possibility of dark matter/energy says that we don't know everything there is to know about the universe.

What if there are fissures of time and space which we're unable to perceive? What if those fissures surround 80% of the area around us? What if some of those fissures are responsible for red-shifting and lead us to false conclusions with respect to the observable universe and other measurements we've managed to glean?

What if Quasars are caused not by rapidly rotating magnetic fields, but by pulses of, say, "existence", in the very fabric of space-time between ourselves and the quasars?

The last, of course, is probably quite easily disproved by noting the fact that no two stars have every been discovered to pulse at the same rate and time.

Again, this is a thought experiment, nothing more. However, as such, consider, if you will, for a moment, the possibility that the Milky Way is the only galaxy in existence, and that both it's future and past are mirrored, endlessly, by multiple fractures throughout the space-time continuum surrounding our galaxy. Perhaps those fractures cannot occur near the presence of matter, which is why we don't see them within the Milky Way itself.

Comments?

[mugaliens]

From what we know do galaxies cycle through stages? like stars have stages, if not that would throw down the idea, because of all the different types of galaxies

Yes, Galaxies have stages. Younger versions are rather fuzzy, while older versions tend to have fairly well-developed spiral arms, born of millenia of gravitational interactions between stars and rotational dynamics.

I find it interesting that spiral galaxies so closely resemble hurricanes when viewed from a point along their rotational axes.

[mugaliens]

The idea violates Occam's razor. Multitudinous external galaxies are a neat, simple solution that fits all the observations.

edit: Also, see Doug above.

Occam's razor is grossly overrated. We've discovered countless things in nature here on Earth and throughout the heavens which violate Occam's razor on a regular basis.

[mugaliens]

If your theory is true, then the Milky Way has been in it's past a spiral, barred spiral, elliptical, and irregular galaxy, and has greatly varied in mass as well.

Galaxies, over their life cycles, morph from fuzzy blobs to spirals. As far as varying in mass, brane theory allows for the creation of mass from either schisms or brane collisions.

[Nereid]

The title of this thread includes the word "theory"; the OP begins: "While reading about quasars, I had a crazy thought".

Could you please clarify what you mean by "theory", mugaliens? In particular, in this thread are you using it as a synonym for "crazy thought"?

[Noclevername]

Galaxies have been observed to gravitationally interact with each other, something that would not happen with time-displaced images.

[eburacum45]

I have seen a less crazy thought expressed as a theory in a book somewhere (sorry I can't be more specific); the idea was that the universe is curved on a scale somewhat shorter than the Hubble radius, so that the galaxies we see at distances of several billion years are in fact the same ones that exist much closer to home. In this theory the Milky Way, Andromeda, and the rest of the local group are visible in the deep sky multiple times. There are many galaxies, in other words, but we see them all multiple times.

The proponent of this theory was, if I recall correctly, a female mathematician; but I don't recall her name.

I am sure that several modern observations, including the Great Void recently discovered, rule out such a large scale repetition of galaxies in our skies.

[Serenitude]

Mugaliens - is this a blog for a "crazy thought", or is this an ATM theory you are prepared to defend?