Unstung
Active member
UDFy-38135539 is seen 13 billion light-years away, only 600 million years after the Big Bang.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789
Furthest Known Galaxy
- Thread starter Unstung
- Start date
jinglesassy
New member
Amazing simply amazing that we can detect such far away objects.
Pyromaniac605
Toast! :D
It's crazy to think that tiny speck of light was travelling here since before humans were on the Earth. (Probably way older but whatever)
Darren
Darren
tblaxland
O-F Administrator
Before the disk of the Milky Way was formed even.
Pyromaniac605
Toast! :D
But since its so far away we can't even be certain it still exists correct?
Darren
Darren
jedidia
shoemaker without legs
It certainly would look a lot different than it looked 13 billion years ago...
Quite impressive. If only they could get some more tangible data out of it, but the thing is just too faint. 13 billion lightyears, I don't even want to imagine what kind of distance that is. It's way easier to just call it 13 billion lightyears
Quite impressive. If only they could get some more tangible data out of it, but the thing is just too faint. 13 billion lightyears, I don't even want to imagine what kind of distance that is. It's way easier to just call it 13 billion lightyears
RisingFury
OBSP developer
The most exciting surprise would be if we find a galaxy that's been there since "before the Big Bang". The most interesting discoveries and updates to Physics are made with such surprises...
SiberianTiger
News Sifter
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,398
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Khimki
- Website
- tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
Since... before? How is that?
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 788
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 33
I think what he means is if we detect one that is so far away it would have to be before our estimate of the Big Bang, thereby upsetting our understanding of the age of the universe
RisingFury
OBSP developer
Exactly. That's how you get rich and famous in science...
Hubble ain't just a cool name for a telescope...
Or that the Big Bang never happened :shifty:
edit: or that there have been many, like a cosmic heart beating once every billions and billions of years.
Last edited:
Jarvitä
New member
That's not how the universe works. We know how old it is precisely because we can only see 13.7*10^9 light years away.
Not really, a galaxy could have been ejected from one universe, traveled through the ether, then popped into our universe.
But on another note, 13.7 billion years doesn't seem that long for a universe. I wonder what is older than that or perhaps further..!?!
But on another note, 13.7 billion years doesn't seem that long for a universe. I wonder what is older than that or perhaps further..!?!
Last edited:
Kevon Daye
Smoking Crater
And who says this is the first time our universe has existed.Has anyone read the short story Flight to Forever.
Eccentrus
Geekernaut
well, by now that galaxy would be 93 (46?) billion light years away, what we see is only the figment of the past
It certainly would look a lot different than it looked 13 billion years ago...
Quite impressive. If only they could get some more tangible data out of it, but the thing is just too faint. 13 billion lightyears, I don't even want to imagine what kind of distance that is. It's way easier to just call it 13 billion lightyears
The distances are not all that far away.. We're only looking at 80,481,871,382,400,000,000,000 miles..
Or somewhere around 129,523,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters.
Considering that all that has ever existed and all that will ever exist must be contained within those distances, its a pretty tiny spot. What goes outside those boundaries?? Where does it stop, and how do we know it stops?
marooder86
Donator
What I'am curious about is how they (astronomers) can be sure if it's really a galaxy and not some supermassive star or even more exotic object. This thing is so far away and so old that I guess only tiny fraction of it's EM spectrum can be measured. I might be wrong but I think that with such small amount of light available one can't determine if what one is observing is really a whole galaxy or a single star.
Does anyone know how the astronomers determine such things? I'm really curious about it.
Does anyone know how the astronomers determine such things? I'm really curious about it.
Regardless of the amount of light, if we can see it see it we can take it apart. I would also tend to guess that it is by the tried and true method of spectroscopy. The light probably exhibits a bunch of redshifts and blueshifts from a rotating galaxy. There are also billions of stars in that galaxy, so the spectrum is gonna' be stuffed full of elements; whereas a single star would be more pristine and "pure". right?
Unstung
Active member
Redshifts, linked to the Doppler effect, determine the age of distant galaxies.
And this, the reason for the bump, will probably dethrone the previous oldest known galaxy:
http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html
UDFj-39546284
And this, the reason for the bump, will probably dethrone the previous oldest known galaxy:
http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html
UDFj-39546284
Linguofreak
Well-known member
Not really. Age has more to do with what elements you'll find in a spectrum than whether something is a galaxy or a star.
Similar threads
