Talk:Baby Boom Galaxy

A fact from Baby Boom Galaxy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 10,232 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the newly discovered Baby Boom Galaxy (pictured) is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year, compared to our own Milky Way galaxy that produces an average of just 10 stars per year?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/September.

Wikipedia

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of galaxies#Brightness and power|brightest]] The anchor (#Brightness and power) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

name, type, record

Aside from the pop-promotion name by NASA, "J100054_023436" seems wrong. Is that underscore a plus "+" or minus "-" ? Exactly what record does this galaxy hold? Are there less bright starburst galaxies that are farther out? Are there closer starburst galaxies that are brighter? Where does "very distant" begin and end? Why is this categorized as a "peculiar galaxy" - there is no morphological type indicated, and "peculiar" is a morphological classification. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EQ J100054+023435, Starburst Galaxy, SMG, LBG, LAG (LAE), maybe AGN, potential galaxy merger or collision... most distant non-quasar SMG - all from the discovery paper 70.51.9.124 (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad DYK hook

Given the distance that this is from us, and that we're looking at what it did billions of years ago, the DYK hook on the main page is incorrectly written in the present rather than the past tense. Boston (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it says "at a surprising rate..." That's editorializing. "Don't tell me how to feel!" Good article though. Sorry I didn't have an opportunity to notice these problems before the hook was promoted. Boston (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking the same thing - we don't know how many stars it is producing now (maybe we can't even be sure it exists now). We seeing a process earlier in the universe (although that universe might not be significantly different to the present universe). These points need making a little earlier in the article. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know?

Article blandly says that the galaxy is creating 4,000 stars a year. How is this known or estimated? Even if you could count the number of stars in the galaxy it has not been under observation long.

Interesting article but needs beefing up Papermaker (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

Why is this article written in the present tense? As we are viewing this galaxy as it was 12.2 billion years ago, it may not still be producing stars at it's previous rate. --HowardRob (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted model?

I removed the wikilink to Hierarchical model for "accepted model" since the referenced article is about databases and seems to have nothing to do with astronomy or cosmology. If anybody knows of a suitable article on the accepted model, I'd invite them to add the link. Nibios (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Why are we so in love with upper-case letters? We have "galaxy" in lower case in titles throughout the wiki, but here all words have capital letters. Should be "Baby boom galaxy". Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether we (or perhaps NASA) regard "Baby Boom" as the proper name of this particular galaxy, or "baby boom" as an attribute of it and perhaps of others. The article seems to regard it as a proper name. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baby Boom Galaxy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724044509/http://www.spaceinfo.com.au/spitzer20080712.html to http://www.spaceinfo.com.au/spitzer20080712.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Other designations" not correct

The "Other designations" entry gives a link to SIMBAD, but the object so named doesn't exist. The actual SIMBAD link to the Baby Boom galaxy appears to be this one, which lists COSMOS 2328516 as the primary identifier. 5.148.100.27 (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Math for amount of stars in this starburst galaxy, correct or wrong?

According to a site where it tells Baby Boom starburst galaxy facts for kids, it says that the astronomers said they observed it when the Universe was about 1.4 BYo (Billion Years Old). Let's calculate the math. If the wikipedia says it creates 4,000 stars per year, then according to kiddie enclyopedia, it was observed when the universe was just 1.4 billion years old, than that means we have to multiply 1.4 Billion by 4000, we get a rough estimate of 7e+12 (7E12 or 7 Trillion) of 7 times ten to the twelfth power (7 * 10^12). More stars form from our very young universe until the age of the universe from 1.4 Billion to 13.7 billion has risen quickly. If we estimate, we can multiply (Age of universe estimated going up × 4000) 1 billion * 4000 to 2 billion * 4000 and et cetera. We can notice that every time we increase by a estimated one increasing the age universe, it goes up by 2 times. We can estimate that if the universe is approximately 13 BYo, then that means that the galaxy has 52 trillion stars. Then that means 13.7 Billion × 4000 is a whopping 54 trillion 800 billion stars (54,800,000,000,000). --StaleGuy22 (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star formation is not a linear process: you can't just multiply the current star formation rate (SFR) by the age of the object. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]