U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-15-2012, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,825 posts, read 20,498,482 times
Reputation: 6500

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
I understand that, but neither one of those are the SXDF-NB1006-2 galaxy which was recently reported, are they? See the last two links I posted. As I mentioned for the sake of fairness, the reports say that "spectrocopic measurements" were used by the Japanese for SXDF-NB1006-2 but it still has to be confirmed by other observers.

What I don't understand is that if SXDF-NB1006-2 is determined to be 12.91 billion light years away, how can it be called "the most distant galaxy known" if there are others (at least one confirmed) that are even more distant like UDFy-38135539 which is 13.1 billion years away? The difference may be slight, but there is a difference.

The two above that you mention (datewise) may be that of a galaxy noted by the French (2010), and the another galaxy by a group in California (2011). According to one article dated June 14, 2012, which was yesterday
(Bold highlight added by me for emphasis):
I am content to wait for the James Webb Space Telescope in 2018. It should be able to see objects red shifted between 15 and 30, or as far as 13.5 billion light years away. Which puts it right in the range of when we think the very first galaxies formed.

We already know that galaxies existed more than 13 billion years ago, so it really does not matter (at least to me) if the furthest galaxy discovered today is 12.91 or 13.1 billion light years away. Tomorrow we will find another galaxy that is even more distant.

I do not know why they are quibbling over such a trivial matter. They must know that their "furthest galaxy record" will not last long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2012, 05:33 PM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,207,066 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I do not know why they are quibbling over such a trivial matter. They must know that their "furthest galaxy record" will not last long.
I guess it makes for a better attention-grabbing headline. Quibbling seems to be a part of the pre-confirmation process. I agree that whatever holds the record today, something else will likely replace it tomorrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 9,076,702 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I am content to wait for the James Webb Space Telescope in 2018. It should be able to see objects red shifted between 15 and 30, or as far as 13.5 billion light years away. Which puts it right in the range of when we think the very first galaxies formed.

We already know that galaxies existed more than 13 billion years ago, so it really does not matter (at least to me) if the furthest galaxy discovered today is 12.91 or 13.1 billion light years away. Tomorrow we will find another galaxy that is even more distant.

I do not know why they are quibbling over such a trivial matter. They must know that their "furthest galaxy record" will not last long.
It would be interesting, for example, to find that there are vestiges of a previous universe. And with "bigger and badder telescopes", we can understand more about our universe. So it's not just how far away a star is, or the record of the farthest galaxies. That's my take.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 07:45 PM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,207,066 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
It would be interesting, for example, to find that there are vestiges of a previous universe.
There are loads of interesting things. It'd be interesting to know if the so-called 'bruises' in the CMB are evidence of other universes or just some kind of anomaly. The Planck spacecraft should provide a pretty interesting resolution of the CMB, but I don't know if it'll settle the question.
Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes - Earth-issues.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,825 posts, read 20,498,482 times
Reputation: 6500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
It would be interesting, for example, to find that there are vestiges of a previous universe. And with "bigger and badder telescopes", we can understand more about our universe. So it's not just how far away a star is, or the record of the farthest galaxies. That's my take.
I do not think even the James Webb Space Telescope could give us that information. We should be able to see to the very beginning of galaxy formation (13.4 to 13.5 billion years ago), but it will not be able to see beyond reionization, even though the JWST sees more into the infrared than Hubble. We should see more Population II stars, but I doubt we will be able to see any Population III stars. Their life-span is too short, and by 250 million years after the Big Bang I doubt that any where left. Although, I do not know. I read that the very first stars formed some 30 million years after the Big Bang, and they could have continued forming for another 250 million years or more. Even though their life-spans would be less than 1.5 million years, pure hydrogen Population III stars could have continued forming for millions of years before the first Population II stars formed.

From 30 million years to around 150 million years after the Big Bang the universe was pretty much an opaque soup of particles. It is theorized that the formation of the Population III stars is what caused, or at least contributed to, reionization.

It will also be interesting to find out whether galaxies formed as a result of super-massive black holes, or did the super-massive black holes form as a result of galaxy formation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 01:56 AM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,825 posts, read 20,498,482 times
Reputation: 6500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
There are loads of interesting things. It'd be interesting to know if the so-called 'bruises' in the CMB are evidence of other universes or just some kind of anomaly. The Planck spacecraft should provide a pretty interesting resolution of the CMB, but I don't know if it'll settle the question.
Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes - Earth-issues.com
Interesting article, but I am very skeptical. The image that they show in the article cannot be found anywhere in the CMB image. There are a lot of arcs, but no circles, and certainly nothing as obvious as the image in the article depicts.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2012, 11:09 AM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,207,066 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Interesting article, but I am very skeptical. The image that they show in the article cannot be found anywhere in the CMB image. There are a lot of arcs, but no circles, and certainly nothing as obvious as the image in the article depicts.
I'm skeptical as well. We discussed an earlier notion put forth by an earlier finding by Roger Penrose about some concentric rings he found in the CMB with idea being that they may represent previous Big Bangs, or as the article described as a cosmic version of the Russian nesting dolls - a Big Bang within a Big Bang within a Big Bang, etc I've never been able to find Penrose's rings which are suppose to be somewhere in the CMB image you posted. Although Penrose is a brilliant cosmologist, I don't think there are too many others that have been able to find what he was seeing. At a wild guess, the image in the article I posted above, as well as Penrose's 'rings' image, may just be a connect-the-dots enhancement. Like you, I can't find even a slight resemblence of these configurations anywhere in the CMB images either. The claims are that the configurations are so extremely faint that they can be easily be missed. I'd like to see an animated fade between the CMB image and the rings images to show exactly where they are. Maybe there's more to it though.

What I understand is that to obtain the image we typically see of the CMB is more of a final image. But like the Hubble Deep Field view of the universe, it's more than just a single snapshot of a instant in time, but rather a very long exposure of many instances in time. I admit I don't really understand how CMB images are created so we can visually see the results. The 'raw' version of the CMB is just data that had to go through several steps to provide a visual image. It's pretty clear that the CMB is so faint and weak that it's far from the spectrum of light that we can normally see. It's possible that the rings and circles show up at slightly earlier points in the exposure. I have no idea though.

I do think they are seeing something. The problem is that the explanation as to exactly how they found them is less than desired. Physicists and mathematitions are not always the best communicators with the general public.

If these rings and circles are actually there, then it would be very interesting to see what can be determined about them. If they do represent earlier Big Bangs or early collisions by other universes, that would be a major step in our understanding of the universe. On the other hand, if they're only illusions, it would be good to have that confirmed as well. For all I know, they could be more like Lowell's idea of an intelligently created irrigation system covering the surface of Mars, or the so-called Face on Mars.

Bold claims certainly stir the imagination primarily because we don't fully understand the universe and its origin. At this point of exploration and discovery, anything is possible, even if it's counterintuitive to our experience and understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2012, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 9,076,702 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
I'm skeptical as well. We discussed an earlier notion put forth by an earlier finding by Roger Penrose about some concentric rings he found in the CMB with idea being that they may represent previous Big Bangs, or as the article described as a cosmic version of the Russian nesting dolls - a Big Bang within a Big Bang within a Big Bang, etc I've never been able to find Penrose's rings which are suppose to be somewhere in the CMB image you posted. Although Penrose is a brilliant cosmologist, I don't think there are too many others that have been able to find what he was seeing. At a wild guess, the image in the article I posted above, as well as Penrose's 'rings' image, may just be a connect-the-dots enhancement. Like you, I can't find even a slight resemblence of these configurations anywhere in the CMB images either. The claims are that the configurations are so extremely faint that they can be easily be missed. I'd like to see an animated fade between the CMB image and the rings images to show exactly where they are. Maybe there's more to it though.

What I understand is that to obtain the image we typically see of the CMB is more of a final image. But like the Hubble Deep Field view of the universe, it's more than just a single snapshot of a instant in time, but rather a very long exposure of many instances in time. I admit I don't really understand how CMB images are created so we can visually see the results. The 'raw' version of the CMB is just data that had to go through several steps to provide a visual image. It's pretty clear that the CMB is so faint and weak that it's far from the spectrum of light that we can normally see. It's possible that the rings and circles show up at slightly earlier points in the exposure. I have no idea though.

I do think they are seeing something. The problem is that the explanation as to exactly how they found them is less than desired. Physicists and mathematitions are not always the best communicators with the general public.

If these rings and circles are actually there, then it would be very interesting to see what can be determined about them. If they do represent earlier Big Bangs or early collisions by other universes, that would be a major step in our understanding of the universe. On the other hand, if they're only illusions, it would be good to have that confirmed as well. For all I know, they could be more like Lowell's idea of an intelligently created irrigation system covering the surface of Mars, or the so-called Face on Mars.

Bold claims certainly stir the imagination primarily because we don't fully understand the universe and its origin. At this point of exploration and discovery, anything is possible, even if it's counterintuitive to our experience and understanding.
As I read your note, I had the crazy idea about the circles. Suppose one is the larger object and a smaller object and that what we are looking at could be a gravitational lens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2012, 11:52 PM
 
5,203 posts, read 8,207,066 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
As I read your note, I had the crazy idea about the circles. Suppose one is the larger object and a smaller object and that what we are looking at could be a gravitational lens.
In the OP image?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2012, 12:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 9,076,702 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
In the OP image?
I was thinking about the Penrose rings you mentioned. Of course, you may have already thought of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top