|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy far, far away | smh.com.au
http://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-t...920-267iu.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
On Sep 19, 5:14*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy far, far away | smh.com.auhttp://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/astronomers-uncover-oldest-ga... What about those stars, star systems, or galaxies in the background of this picture. How far away do you think they are? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
On Sep 19, 6:50*pm, GogoJF wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:14*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy far, far away | smh.com.auhttp://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/astronomers-uncover-oldest-ga... What about those stars, star systems, or galaxies in the background of this picture. *How far away do you think they are? When we get to the "end"- where we can "see" with our devices the limit of the big bang- will the background be all black? I doubt it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion lightyears)
On 19/09/2012 7:50 PM, GogoJF wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:14 pm, Yousuf wrote: Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy far, far away | smh.com.auhttp://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/astronomers-uncover-oldest-ga... What about those stars, star systems, or galaxies in the background of this picture. How far away do you think they are? That picture is not an actual picture of the galaxy in question. If you read the caption on the picture that's a picture of a galaxy named, NGC 1365, which is just being used as a representation of that this galaxy might look like. A galaxy that far away would be only a couple of pixels in an actual image. Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
On Sep 19, 9:29*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 19/09/2012 7:50 PM, GogoJF wrote: On Sep 19, 5:14 pm, Yousuf *wrote: Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy far, far away | smh.com.auhttp://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/astronomers-uncover-oldest-ga... What about those stars, star systems, or galaxies in the background of this picture. *How far away do you think they are? That picture is not an actual picture of the galaxy in question. If you read the caption on the picture that's a picture of a galaxy named, NGC 1365, which is just being used as a representation of that this galaxy might look like. A galaxy that far away would be only a couple of pixels in an actual image. * * * * Yousuf Khan Thank you. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
GogoJF wrote:
On Sep 19, 5:14 pm, Yousuf Khan wrote: Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy far, far away | smh.com.auhttp://m.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/astronomers-uncover-oldest-ga... What about those stars, star systems, or galaxies in the background of this picture. How far away do you think they are? The journalists used an image of a nearby galaxy as an illustration. In the actual images shown in the Nature article, the galaxy MACS 1149-JD is just a blob of a few pixels extent. As the object is visible only because it is gravitationally lensed (hence looks much brighter than it would otherwise appear) all the other objects in the field are either nearer galaxies or foreground stars in our galaxy. What is really interesting is that the spectrum (or, rather, multi-colour photometry) shows that it is a starburst galaxy and an analysis of the stellar populations implies that the stars in the galaxy were mostly formed within 200 MYr of the Big Bang, although that conclusion is only 2-sigma confidence. The implication is that galaxies were forming and stars were forming only 200 MYr after the BB. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
Dear Mike Dworetsky:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 12:41:49 AM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote: .... As the object is visible only because it is gravitationally lensed (hence looks much brighter than it would otherwise appear) all the other objects in the field are either nearer galaxies or foreground stars in our galaxy. When an object of some "standard" size, is located in a much smaller Universe, the image travels out into an expanded Universe, the original object appears magnified... but it was expansion that did it, not gravitation, right? Objects don't stretch with the "balloon", but the image does. How does intensification occur when climbing out of a gravity well (from a more dense Universe, into a less dense Universe)? It would make more sense to me that the object was more massive, and was still getting hotter CMBR light to pump photoactivity, so its intensity would have nothing to do with gravitational lensing. David A. Smith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
dlzc wrote:
Dear Mike Dworetsky: On Friday, September 21, 2012 12:41:49 AM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote: ... As the object is visible only because it is gravitationally lensed (hence looks much brighter than it would otherwise appear) all the other objects in the field are either nearer galaxies or foreground stars in our galaxy. When an object of some "standard" size, is located in a much smaller Universe, the image travels out into an expanded Universe, the original object appears magnified... but it was expansion that did it, not gravitation, right? Objects don't stretch with the "balloon", but the image does. How does intensification occur when climbing out of a gravity well (from a more dense Universe, into a less dense Universe)? It would make more sense to me that the object was more massive, and was still getting hotter CMBR light to pump photoactivity, so its intensity would have nothing to do with gravitational lensing. David A. Smith It is gravitationally lensed by a giant elliptical galaxy in a dense cluster between us and the distant galaxy, which is why it looks a lot brighter than it would if there were no lensing. In fact it would be invisible to HST. The cluster and giant galaxy are both much closer to us than the very distant object. -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
Dear Mike Dworetsky:
On Friday, September 21, 2012 9:19:31 AM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote: .... It is gravitationally lensed by a giant elliptical galaxy in a dense cluster between us and the distant galaxy, which is why it looks a lot brighter than it would if there were no lensing. In fact it would be invisible to HST. The cluster and giant galaxy are both much closer to us than the very distant object. Focus, as in bending light rays destined for a larger area, to a smaller one. Got it. Thanks. David A. Smith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers uncover oldest galaxy so far (13.2 billion light years)
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT), dlzc wrote:
Dear Mike Dworetsky: On Friday, September 21, 2012 9:19:31 AM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote: ... It is gravitationally lensed by a giant elliptical galaxy in a dense cluster between us and the distant galaxy, which is why it looks a lot brighter than it would if there were no lensing. In fact it would be invisible to HST. The cluster and giant galaxy are both much closer to us than the very distant object. Focus, as in bending light rays destined for a larger area, to a smaller one. Got it. Thanks. David A. Smith Why didnt they mention the redshift z? You can't estimate distance without it. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A galaxy cluster at 9.6 billion years | jacob navia[_5_] | Research | 1 | May 23rd 10 01:53 PM |
11.5 billion light years away super massive galaxy photoed by localtelescope? | LIBERATOR[_3_] | History | 7 | August 11th 09 07:23 PM |
Results of 3 year study of oldest light in the Universe, only 1million years after the big bang | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 16th 08 09:39 PM |
How can we see anything from 13 billion light years away? | N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) | Astronomy Misc | 13 | March 16th 04 07:01 PM |
oldest planet 13 billion years old in M-4 | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 5 | July 14th 03 06:22 PM |