• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hubble Deeper Field

Hexxenhammer

Malleus Malefactorum
H
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
2,122
No one has started a thread about the new Hubble pictures, so here we go.

To think that you can look at a tiny blank spot of sky and find that it contains 10,000 galaxies and that you're looking back in time up to 13 billion years is mind boggling. I can barely wrap my mind around it. When I was little I would lay in bed awake, trying to comprehend infinity. I'm still trying.
 
I'm using the shot as my desktop.

This sort of thing, I've always found quixotic to the extreme... ancient beauty.

There will maybe be better pics in 2011. Can't wait!
 
Hubble thrust his huge Deep-Field Probe challengingly at the universe.

"Deeper," the universe said urgently. "Deeper..."
 
Sundog said:
Hubble thrust his huge Deep-Field Probe challengingly at the universe.

"Deeper," the universe said urgently. "Deeper..."
Click to expand...

This post is in violation of the "Keep a Civil Tongue" rule, and is in unacceptable poor taste. A mis-behavior of this sort is a set back for the JREF educational mission, and therefore has no place in this forum.

This is a warning that any further violation of the said rule may result in suspension or permanent banning from the JREF forums.
 
Hey! I watched all that on the Discovery Channel last night. They said they were going back almost 13 Billion years there. The estimated age of the universe is around there (speaking solely from memory of the program), and they expect that is the oldest shot of the universe yet. They speculated how this is looking back in time to where the light is from when the universe was rather brand new.

What if they are able to get a shot going back 15 Billion years? What if there is no end at all to the universe and galaxies just go on forever? I highly support that idea.

I'm just excited to see that there is no visual end of galaxies and matter of the universe as of yet.


Very Beautiful picture, thank you.
 
It is the picture that goes the furthest back in visible light. The data from COBE, BOOMERANG, WMAP and all the other Cosmic Microwave Background probes image light from the surface of last scattering, 379,000 years after the Big Bang. That was when the Universe was in its' infancy.
 
13 Billion Years? Hahahahaa! I'd guesstimate not much older than 5 or 6 thousand years HAHAHAAaaa:D:D:D:p
 
Silly questions from a non-scientist provoked by these images.
Perhaps someone can recommend books or sites for laymen.

When I saw these images (on BBC first) along with the commentary about their age, I was, like most people I think, awed. It truly amazes me.

Then I got to thinking that my simple perception of how we're "looking back" is mistaken.

I--and most laymen, I think--consider these to be photos of something actually far away, i.e., our vision extends across the trillions of light years to see what 'is;' Hubble merely extends the distance we are visually traversing by picking up light that is physically far away. (I've said this poorly, but I think you get the gist).

But the latest images drove it home that what Hubble really does is gather light that is already here and converts it into an image. Actually, it gathers light over an extended time so that it is in fact recording a 'stream' of light or of photons and recording them over each other to increase their visibility. (Poor word, again, sorry).

So really, we see nothing at a distance. We are localized, registering light as it reaches us and merely interpreting data to 'mean' distance.

Further, over long distances, the interpretation becomes one of time.

Which leads to all sorts of philosophical questions that have undoubtedly been hashed and rehashed by smarter people than I am.

So where can I find those hashes that will allow me to make sense of this?

Sorry for the lack of clarity; I can't figure out how to say it better.
 
Hexxenhammer said:
No one has started a thread about the new Hubble pictures, so here we go.

To think that you can look at a tiny blank spot of sky and find that it contains 10,000 galaxies and that you're looking back in time up to 13 billion years is mind boggling. I can barely wrap my mind around it. When I was little I would lay in bed awake, trying to comprehend infinity. I'm still trying.
Click to expand...

It's amazing to think we're looking back in time over 6000 years!

I think I can see Jebus's face in the galaxy, bottom right.
 
Re: Re: Hubble Deeper Field

Fidelio said:


Not wishing to be too much of a pedant here but...ahem...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36777]

And yes it is awesome, I downloaded the full version and will be perusing it for a few months.
Click to expand...

I d/l the full version too, how would I view it easily? It's a 60 meg jpg that is 6200 X 6200!

Are there programs that I could get that would make viewing it and 'moving around and zooming in' possible?

It's HUGE! :D

Adam
 
Garrette said:
... I got to thinking that my simple perception of how we're "looking back" is mistaken.

I--and most laymen, I think--consider these to be photos of something actually far away, i.e., our vision extends across the trillions of light years to see what 'is;' Hubble merely extends the distance we are visually traversing by picking up light that is physically far away. (I've said this poorly, but I think you get the gist).

But the latest images drove it home that what Hubble really does is gather light that is already here and converts it into an image. Actually, it gathers light over an extended time so that it is in fact recording a 'stream' of light or of photons and recording them over each other to increase their visibility. (Poor word, again, sorry).

So really, we see nothing at a distance. We are localized, registering light as it reaches us and merely interpreting data to 'mean' distance.

Further, over long distances, the interpretation becomes one of time.
Click to expand...

I'll take a stab at this. We aren't actually seeing light that is "physically far away." The light we are seeing is composed of photons that are here now. However, those photons have traveled 13 billion light years, which means that they have been traveling for 13 billion years (since a light year is the distance light travels in a year.)
Now, since the photons have been traveling all that time, what we are seeing are photons that were emitted by those galaxies at that time. Therefore, what we are seeing is how those galaxies were, that long ago. To see them as they look "now", we would have to wait for the light to get here from there, which would take another 13 billion years. (Sorry, but that is past my bedtime.)

Is that clearer? I admit that what I have said isn't the most rigorous of scientific explanations, but it should be okay in, as you would put it, layman's terms.

(I won't go into the relativistic definition of "now". It would only confuse this issue.)
 
Thanks, Captain Trips, for the attempt, but I don't think I communicated clearly what I'm after.

I understand we're seeing photons now that are conveying 13 billion year old information. But that's the cause of my confusion, not the answer to it.

I think I need an Einstein Primer, really. Here's why:

1. I'm seeing photons that are here now but which are conveying 13 billion year old information.

2. Simultaneously, I'm seeing photons from my computer screen which are conveying current information (discounting the tiny amount of time it takes for the photon to travel from the screen to my eyes).

3. I am simultaneously see old and new information.

So I'm simultaneously experiencing two times.

But the reason I'm doing that has nothing to do with time but with distance.

So distance is time.

Which means I'm a genius like Einstein because I'm figuring this out all on my own. {If only I could do math, I'd be famous, too}

I've actually had an academic awareness of this little problem (to me, anyway) for some time, but it was only the latest Hubble image that made it visceral.

Other than submitting to the urge to retreat into neverending rounds of rum-and-coke, how do I come to grips with this?

As always, the answer is apparently: read and study.

I hate that...
 
Captain Trips
To see them as they look "now", we would have to wait for the light to get here from there, which would take another 13 billion years.
Click to expand...
It may take longer than that. The galaxy is further away from us now! How much further away, compared to 13 billion LY?

Eos of the Eons
What if they are able to get a shot going back 15 Billion years? What if there is no end at all to the universe and galaxies just go on forever? I highly support that idea.
Click to expand...
As you look further back in time, eventually all you'll see is the microwave background which marks the moment when the universe became transparent. That's already been mapped by COBE, as wollery has already said.

But as for the universe going on forever...
It does, at least, go on beyond what's visible. IE: there are, surely, plenty of galaxies more than 13 billion light years from here. It will be a very long time before anyone in this part of space gets to see them. In fact, the universe may be so big that the expansion will move apart some points more quickly than the speed of light.

[edited to add] In fact I'm not sure if we would ever see galaxies that are not currently in the visible universe. If the universe became transparent 15 billion years ago (say), and there is a galaxy now 16 billion LY away, then how would we ever see it? [/edit]

Garrette
As always, the answer is apparently: read and study.

I hate that...
Click to expand...

I hate that you hate that! :)
If you find the subject interesting, then how can studying it be a chore? And would it be as interesting if it wasn't as complicated? After all, if it could be learnt in a second it can be forgotten in a second.
 
So really, we see nothing at a distance. We are localized, registering light as it reaches us and merely interpreting data to 'mean' distance.
Click to expand...

Very true, but that light we are receiving is that old, and has travelled a long long time from far far away.

FireGarden said:


As you look further back in time, eventually all you'll see is the microwave background which marks the moment when the universe became transparent. That's already been mapped by COBE, as wollery has already said.

But as for the universe going on forever...
It does, at least, go on beyond what's visible. IE: there are, surely, plenty of galaxies more than 13 billion light years from here. It will be a very long time before anyone in this part of space gets to see them. In fact, the universe may be so big that the expansion will move apart some points more quickly than the speed of light.

In fact I'm not sure if we would ever see galaxies that are not currently in the visible universe. If the universe became transparent 15 billion years ago (say), and there is a galaxy now 16 billion LY away, then how would we ever see it?


.
Click to expand...

So what if we just keeping seeing light from farther away distances and never seen an ending to incoming light? There should a point at which light no longer comes from if the universe 'ends' at its beginning right? What if we never see an end? What if we receive light from galaxies that are over 16 billion years old? Or 18, or 20?
 
Eos of the Eons said:

So what if we just keeping seeing light from farther away distances and never seen an ending to incoming light? There should a point at which light no longer comes from if the universe 'ends' at its beginning right? What if we never see an end? What if we receive light from galaxies that are over 16 billion years old? Or 18, or 20?
Click to expand...
If the universe is infinitely old, then what happens if you run the expansion in reverse?

Remember, it's not just galaxies flying apart. It's the actual space getting bigger.

Then there's the cosmic background radiation. How do you explain its similarity in all directions if all those points weren't once close enough to interact?

We may be wrong about the timescale, but can we be wrong that there was a beginning?
 
FireGarden said:

If the universe is infinitely old, then what happens if you run the expansion in reverse?

Remember, it's not just galaxies flying apart. It's the actual space getting bigger.

Then there's the cosmic background radiation. How do you explain its similarity in all directions if all those points weren't once close enough to interact?

We may be wrong about the timescale, but can we be wrong that there was a beginning?
Click to expand...

I heard some galaxies are actually moving closer to ours, but some further away from ours. I just don't understand how this can happen if we are infinitely expanding 'outwards'.

In my infinite ignorance, I have no idea what cosmic background radiation is. I have something to look up now, and hopefully that will explain a few things, thank you. Can you expand on that topic?

If there was one beginning, then why can't there be several?

Another bit of my ignorance that I hope someone can explain in layman's terms is how we know for sure that "actual space" is getting bigger, and explain what exactly is this "space" that can get bigger if space is essentially nothing. Is the universe getting bigger, or all of space?

Then one of these I may start knowing what the heck I am talking about :)


For instance, I have no idea what this means:

By the early 1970's it became clear that the CMB sky is hotter in one direction and cooler in the opposite direction, with the temperature difference being a few mK (or about 0.1% of the overall temperature). The pattern of this temperature variation on the sky is known as a "dipole", and is exactly what is expected if we are moving through the background radiation at high speed in the direction of the hot part. The inference is that our entire local group of galaxies is moving in a particular direction at about 600 km/s. In the direction we are moving the wavelengths of the radiation are squashed together (a blue-shift), making the sky appear hotter there, while in the opposite direction the wavelengths are stretched out (redshift), making the sky appear colder there. When this dipole pattern, due to our motion, is removed, the CMB sky appears incredibly isotropic. Further investigations, including more recent ones by the COBE satellite (eg Smoot et. al.), confirmed the virtual isotropy of the CMB to better than one part in ten-thousand.
Click to expand...
http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html

I am extremely curious about all this. I would love to understand it all more.
 
Eos,

Have a read of George Smoot's book 'Wrinkles in Time'. It describes the investigation of the cosmic background radiation and is a fascinating insight into modern astronomy.
It is easy to read and as gripping as a detective story, IMO. It will answer all your questions.
 
This probably won't make much sense, but here goes anyway. I've been confusing myself with this for about two weeks now.

If all matter in the universe stared at one point in space. How could we see back in time 13 billion years if it took us that amount of time to get where we are now? Does this suggest that the universe is a lot older than 13 billion years? Are we flying through the universe at nearly the speed of light, or am I missing something very simple here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom