Hubble sees farther back in time than ever before
Above: This image of the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field is a small part of the deepest infrared image ever taken of the universe. The small blue box outlines the area where astronomers found what may be the most distant galaxy ever seen, 13.2 billion light-years away, meaning its light was emitted just 480 million years after the Big Bang. It is small and very faint and is shown separately in the larger box. The galaxy is shown as blue because it emitted very blue light due to its high rate of star birth, although by the time the light reached Hubble it had been stretched into the infrared by the expansion of space, giving it a redshift value of about 10. Its official name is UDFj-39546284, but astronomers refer to it as the “redshift 10 galaxy candidate.” Credit: NASA, ESA, Garth Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz) and Rychard Bouwens (University of California, Santa Cruz and Leiden University) and the HUDF09 Team.
Pasadena, CA— Astronomers have pushed NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope to it limits by finding what they believe to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe—at a distance of 13.2 billion light years, some 3% of the age of universe. This places the object roughly 150 million light years more distant than the previous record holder. The observations provide the best insights yet into the birth of the first stars and galaxies and the evolution of the universe. The research is published in the 27th January edition of Nature.
The dim object is a compact galaxy made of blue stars that existed only 480 million years after the Big Bang. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way.
Co-author Ivo Labbé of the Carnegie Observatories puts the findings into context: “We are thrilled to have discovered this galaxy, but we’re equally surprised to have found only one. This tells us that the universe was changing very rapidly in early times.”
Previous searches had found 47 galaxies at somewhat later times, when the universe was about 650 million years old. The rate of star birth therefore increased by about ten times in the interval from 480 million years to 650 million years. “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, happening in just 1% of the age of the universe,” says Labbé.
“These observations provide us with our best insights yet into the earliest primeval objects yet to be found,” adds Rychard Bouwens of the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.
Astronomers don’t know exactly when the first stars appeared in the universe, but every step back in time takes them deeper into the early universe’s “formative years” when stars and galaxies were just beginning to emerge in the aftermath of the Big Bang.
“We’re moving into a regime where there are big changes afoot. And what it tells us is that if we go back another couple hundred million years toward the Big Bang we’ll see absolutely dramatic things happening. That will be the time where the first galaxies really are starting to get built up,” says Garth Illingworth of the University of California at Santa Cruz.
The even more distant proto galaxies will require the infrared vision of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, which is the successor to Hubble, and next-generation ground-based telescopes, such as the Giant Magellan Telescope. These new facilities, planned for later this decade, will provide confirming spectroscopic measurements of the tremendous distance of the object being reported today.
After over a year of detailed analysis, the galaxy was positively identified in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field – Infrared (HUDF-IR) data taken in the late summer of both 2009 and 2010. These observations were made with the Wide Field Planetary Camera 3 (WFPC3) starting just a few months after it was installed into the Hubble Space Telescope in May of 2009, during the last NASA space shuttle servicing mission to Hubble.
The object appears as a faint dot of starlight in the Hubble exposures. It is too young and too small to have the familiar spiral shape that is characteristic of galaxies in the local universe, such as the Milky Way. Though individual stars can’t be resolved by Hubble, the evidence suggests that this is a compact galaxy of hot stars that first started to form over 100 to 200 million years earlier in a pocket of dark matter.
The proto galaxy is only visible at the farthest infrared wavelengths observable by Hubble. This means that the expansion of the universe has stretched its light farther that any other galaxy previously identified in the HUDF-IR, to the very limit of Hubble’s capabilities.
Astronomers plumb the depths of the universe by measuring how much the light from an object has been stretched by the expansion of space. This is called redshift value or “z.” Before Hubble was launched, astronomers could only see galaxies out to a z approximately 1, corresponding to 6 billion years after the Big Bang. The Hubble Deep Field taken in 1995 leapfrogged to z=4, or roughly 90 percent of the way back to the beginning of time. The new Advanced Camera and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field pushed back the limit to z~6 after the 2002 servicing mission. Hubble’s first infrared camera, the Near Infrared Camera and Multi Object Spectrometer reached out to z=7. The WFC3/IR reached back to z~8, and now plausibly has penetrated for the first time to z=10 (about 500 million years after the Big Bang). The Webb Space Telescope is expected to leapfrog to z~15, and possibly beyond. The very first stars may have formed between z of 30 to 15, or 100 to 250 million years post Big Bang.
The hypothesized hierarchical growth of galaxies—from stellar clumps to majestic spirals—didn’t become evident until the Hubble Space Telescope deep field exposures. The first 500 million years of the universe’s existence, from a z of 1000 to 10 is now the missing chapter in the hierarchical growth of galaxies. It’s not clear how the universe assembled structure out of a darkening, cooling fireball of the Big Bang. As with a developing embryo, astronomers know there must have been an early period of rapid changes that would set the initial conditions to make the universe of galaxies that exist today. Astronomers eagerly await the new space and ground-based telescopes to find out!
“Because despite that book you like waving around, and your deeply held faith, the burden of proof to show that a creator exists is on you guys. ”
Actually, no one has to prove anything about God. Belief in God is based on faith, not proof. If you got no faith, then you do not believe in God, if you do, then you might.
Somehow, I must have missed the warning in the rules for posting that opinions are verboten here and not welcome, either that, or you attacking someone because their view of the evidence leads to a different result than your preordained faith based opinion that secular science has all the answers.
Just to humble your arrogance slightly, think about this, if at the end of the century your still alive and scientists have completely created a unified theory of everything, answer the question of why.
[Note: Site Policy states: “Certain topics are not welcome here and comments concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion…” Fair warning to all. ~dbs, mod.]
How do you know you are looking back in time? Duh?
astonerii says:
January 26, 2011 at 7:06 pm
“…the question of why.”
This is the difference between science and non-science. As children we were taught the most important question to as is “Why?”. Later some learn that in science there never is a why, there is only a “How?”. Why implies a decision, a purpose, how only needs a method and no purpose. Those who believe that there is a purpose to the universe will ask why, those that believe the universe exist without purpose will ask only how.
A psychologist may try to find out why people believe in God.
A biochemist may try to find out how people believe in God.
Both feel that they are asking the correct question.
“…secular science has all the answers”
No, I do not think so, it just has different questions.
For fun…
What they are claiming about seeing backward into time, and the age of the universe, and the ‘Big Bang’ are only constructions of their assumptions. The astrophysicists are just guessing.
For example, to use Einstein’s famous thought exercise method:
Imagine you were riding within that light that is sensed here by the Hubble.
If you were, you were created 13 billion years ago.
However, and this is key, if you were that light that originated 13 billion years in the PAST, you would be ‘seeing’ the FUTURE as you approached the Hubble. Because the Hubble was not created until the FUTURE.
And you would, of course meet it and become gobbled up in its sensing elements.
The ‘past’ meeting the ‘future’.
Now, the point here is, if you assume you can look back into the PAST by looking out at the universe in a particular direction, then you should also be able to look into the FUTURE by looking in the opposite direction, or in some direction.
But you can’t.
No matter which direction you turn, you cannot see the future. And yet that light coming from that supposed galaxy is doing just that!
So, in my opinion, their assumptions and calculations are incorrect somewhere.
There is something far more miraculous going on ‘out there’ rather than a simple ‘Big Bang’.
Now there is a way that I think the past can meet the future.
The past can meet the future only if you assume that there is a sort of big spacious NOW.
And it is not so much as the past meeting the future, because that is only one way of looking at it.
It is more likely that both the past and future are both being created from any given NOW point.
And if that is so, then there was no Big Bang.
In my opinion,a more correct view would be that the universe is being continuously created from every conceivable NOW point. NOW.
What you ‘see’ depends on what you ‘believe’…
Anthony,
Thank you very much.
Everybody wave! Let them know we’re friendly.
Thanks Gary-I loved that-I’m waving!
Tim,
I’ll take natural laws that allow us to make useful predictions as opposed to being subject to the whims of a fickle diety. Similarly, I prefer the Rule of Law – rules applied to everyone equally – as opposed to being subject to the whims of a socialist regime that decides who should be punished or not. I assume I have free will rather than having a pre-determined fate.
Yes, there are some assumptions that we must make to start with, but we try to go back to first principles. I prefer to take science a step beyond philosophy by seeking to create useful tools. Basic knowledge is essential, but that is a first step. Knowledge solely for the sake of knowledge is unprofitable. Practically speaking, you need to have a return on your investment at some point. Pure knowledge will eventually lead to something more useful, and its pursuit should be supported.
Creationism is not scientific. What is the predictive value (an omnipotent god can do anything)? How can you test it? The concept is ‘faith based’ at its core, and therefore not debateable. The Sunday School lecture may be more helpful in other venues. Morality needs your support in our crumbling society. Everyone needs to have a solid foundation to make the right decisions.
Certainly, there are things greater than our own individual existence. We, as a nation or species, might decide to set goals that could require multiple lifetimes to achieve. And defintely, there are things that are objectively good and evil.
Gary:
Klatuu barada nikto!
Lets see if I got this right:
The Universe is 14 billion years old (Maya calendar suggests 16.4 billion).
We see a star 8 billion light years away, then turn the telescope 180 deg
and we see the same star 6 billion light years away?
No, I didnt get it right, did I?
Sorry the HBBT “hot big bang theory” Is to cosmology as is the AGW theory is to climate science..Total BS and un-provable. Typical NASA to “push the BB just like AGW. Although Cosmolgy is not economic in that sence it is as far as funding goes .Just like AGW. Infact as H. Arp has pointed out there is plenty of agenda in it for funding in astromomy and with its dodgy biased peer review system. Try to get an non BB cosmology paper published in Astronomy or the AstroPhysical Journal. Not much!
Genesis, Revised standard version.
To me, the bolded portion sounds a truly like a primitive, but very poetic description of the “Big Bang.”
Belief can be a comforting and illuminating experience, but it can also be a blinding affliction; not saying it is right or wrong.
Honest science endeavors – but often fails – to learn how the universe works; it keeps trying though.
P Wilson says:
January 26, 2011 at 6:28 pm
“as a sceptic of Big Bang – the notion that the cosmos (time and space) began at a point in time in the past – if something is over 13 billion light years away, it means that it takes that long for its light to reach us. It doesn’t mean that it is 13.2 billion years years old. It would well be 200 billion years old and we’re merely seeing what happened 13 billion years ago.
Have always thought that cosmology had paradigms like climate science…
Anyhow, if the universe is infinite, that how can infinity expand on itself? Something of a paradox. The same with time. (And indeed, what is it expaning into? The great infinite cosmos)
It is inconceivable that there was a moment that did not precede another moment, soi t is quite probable to say that matter, space, time and what we understand of the cosmos today was not too dissimilar many thousands of billions of light years ago.
Big bang is a theory borrowed from the religious precept of a creator at a point in time, and fashioned along nominally scientific lines”
Dear P. Wilson
Your faith in science is absolute, and therin lies the problem, as there are no absolutes in science, which only deals with things relative and quantifiable. For instance your “It is inconceivable that there was a moment that did not precede another moment,” Is tantamount to saying “everything inclusive” has no cause as it always was, thus you defeat the law of cause and effect.
This is the basis of the cosmological argument which says there must be an absolute, an infinite something above the laws of cause and effect.
Smokey says:
January 26, 2011 at 8:16 pm
I tried that on an ex wife once, I thought for sure she was an alien.
Or a child-like thinker.
Read “The Big Bang Never Happened”. It is an interesting read from a group of plasma Physicists who don’t buy into the red-shift is doppler in origin theory and propose some alternatives, as well as some interesting theories on how the shapes of galaxies are produce by large (galactic) scale electric charge flows and magnetic fields.
Planck’s law says that E=hF, so if for some reason light were to gradually lose energy (E) as it travels through space (too small to measure locally, but big enough inter-galactically), the natural outcome is for the frequency (F) to drop proportionally with the loss of energy (h is Planck’s constant). This is an alternate explanation for why the red-shift is linearly proportional to the distance that light has traveled, and eliminates the need for the Big Bang. If it is true that light loses energy as it travels, it means that there is a big hole in our understanding of Physics (not unreasonable considering that we don’t know what we don’t know).
I mean, after all, nobody really knows what an electric or magnetic field really is. We can measure it, and characterize it, but we don’t know why it exists or how it acts at a distance. There are lots of bizarre sub-atomic particle theories that attempt to explain it, but no one really KNOWS.
I can see my house from here!! Lot’s of great posts on this thread. For some it is hard to face ones unimportance in the vastness of it all. I find it uplifting and meaningful. The joy of knowing that we have so much to learn. The journey being more important than the destination.
Does anyone else see the face of Mr. Bill on the left side of the close-up?
All this “intelligent design” hoo-hah and not yet one word about the Super-Intelligent Space Squids.
Much less the Noodly Goodness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I’d like to repeat my request for consideration of whether or not the Hubble STS should be continued in operation even after the Webb STS successor is lofted and functioning if the Hubble platform can be expected to support observations of this character as well as other lesser tasks than the Webb system will be capable of undertaking.
As for the religious types and scientific inquiry:
There are more unknowns than known’s, more questions than answers, more puzzles than pieces.
In my non-science vocabulary science gives us a process to observe, name, model and test. It has not/does not provide understanding or wisdom. We name ‘dimensions’ of time, space etc. however, that’s only our grasp at an idea of how it works. Are there more dimensions? Are dimension the wrong approach? Is there a unified theory? We do not know!!!
Again: There are more unknowns than known’s, more questions than answers, more puzzles than pieces.
What a mysterious, wonderful place we inhabit. Or do we?
I don’t take seriously any scientific news that contain words “Big Bang,” “early Universe,” and “dark matter.” These are failed conjectures attracting those who need to paint familiar Old Man’s face on the fabric of the Unknown.
As soon as somebody utters”Big Bang,” creationists gather like flies on… OK, like bees on honey.
Red shift is a consequence of the curvature of space-time. The farther they look, the more galaxies they will see. Forever and ever, amen.
Anthropocentric worldview is a lamentable short-circuit state of the brain that has no relation to macro-cosmic or microcosmic reality.
Re: “Read “The Big Bang Never Happened”. It is an interesting read from a group of plasma Physicists who don’t buy into the red-shift is doppler in origin theory and propose some alternatives, as well as some interesting theories on how the shapes of galaxies are produce by large (galactic) scale electric charge flows and magnetic fields.
Planck’s law says that E=hF, so if for some reason light were to gradually lose energy (E) as it travels through space (too small to measure locally, but big enough inter-galactically), the natural outcome is for the frequency (F) to drop proportionally with the loss of energy (h is Planck’s constant). This is an alternate explanation for why the red-shift is linearly proportional to the distance that light has traveled, and eliminates the need for the Big Bang. If it is true that light loses energy as it travels, it means that there is a big hole in our understanding of Physics (not unreasonable considering that we don’t know what we don’t know).
I mean, after all, nobody really knows what an electric or magnetic field really is. We can measure it, and characterize it, but we don’t know why it exists or how it acts at a distance. There are lots of bizarre sub-atomic particle theories that attempt to explain it, but no one really KNOWS.”
If more people paid attention to philosophy of science, they would feel obligated to consider such notions — and to try to make them work as diligently as the mathematicians have worked on the dark matter models.
jack morrow says:
January 26, 2011 at 7:07 pm
How do you know you are looking back in time? Duh?
That one is simple. Just look at the sun, the light from that close source takes 8 minutes to reach us, so what we are seeing on the surface of the sun actually happened 8 minutes earlier, or 8 minutes back in time.
No matter what we look at, no matter how near nor how far, what we see is what happened back in time. The further away the source of that object we are observing, the further back in time we are seeing.
Interestingly, Einsteins general theory of relativity breaks down when it comes to the singularity that supposedly spawned the universe in the current BB standard model. In fact you could say that general relativity theory is incompatible with the current standard model paradigm but at the same time intrinsically underpinning it. Counter intuitive to say the least.
And those photons that made the image were actually emitted in all directions, but decided to instantiate themselves in the satellites camera, and immediately the wave front sphere of 26 billion light years diameter disappears, as the photon no longer exists, having been converted to an electric impulse.