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.
If this is not the case then we are simply viewing an image that doesn't change no matter how much we zoom in or out and that doesn't make sense.
We can observe change, just not in the instant that it happens. At an object a billion light years away, we will only be able to observe the change as it happened, at the same speed that it happened, but as it happened a billion years ago, and not a moment sooner.
all good points however if we view the sun from earth and it suddenly burned out we cant see it (the burn out) for 8 minutes but if we view it through a telescope (with an extra dark lenses ) prior to the 8 minutes being over we should be able to see it sooner...!? no? The same idea would go with seeing something further. If we zoom into a planet that splits into 2 that is 2 billion light years away we see it as how it is 2 billion light years away but if we zoom further or bring it back we should be seeing it change in time...?
If this is not the case then we are simply viewing an image that doesn't change no matter how much we zoom in or out and that doesn't make sense.
Do I make sense?
OMG NOOOOOOooooooo you don't make sense. This is sooooooo simple, yet obviously beyond your reasoning.
The light that reaches your eye, and the light that reaches the aperture of the telescope do so at the very same time. Just because it "looks" closer doesn't mean that you are closer, it magnifies the image making it "appear" close, but it is still 93M miles away, from your eye, and the telescope, and still take 8.3168708 minutes to get here.
OMG NOOOOOOooooooo you don't make sense. This is sooooooo simple, yet obviously beyond your reasoning.
The light that reaches your eye, and the light that reaches the aperture of the telescope do so at the very same time. Just because it "looks" closer doesn't mean that you are closer, it magnifies the image making it "appear" close, but it is still 93M miles away, from your eye, and the telescope, and still take 8.3168708 minutes to get here.
So all we have is an image. And we are depending on light being our vision....and the speed of light being the fastest speed.
So all we have is an image. And we are depending on light being our vision....and the speed of light being the fastest speed.
No, we are not depending on the speed of light being the fastest speed (although that does appear to be the case). We're looking at light, so the speed of light is the relevant speed. If the images from deep space were carried by FedEx truck then that's the speed we'd be relying on.
There are ton of assumptions in getting at the various billions of light year numbers that have been mentioned. Most of those have been discussed in detail in this and other threads. If you want to find a flaw in the argument, look at those underlying assumptions.
Of course, it's always possible that the universe came in to being with light already on its way here, thus completely invalidating earlier arguments. It's also possible that the universe came in to being mere seconds ago and all the light was on its way, all these forums and computers already filled, and all our memories already implanted in our brain. Neither of those scenarios are particularly compelling, but no measurement could prove them wrong.
So all we have is an image. And we are depending on light being our vision....and the speed of light being the fastest speed.
Let's assume you and your friend are standing side-by-side on the railroad tracks.
You are looking down the tracks only with your eyes at an oncoming train.
Your friend is also looking down the tracks at the same oncoming train, but with a telescope. (which makes it "appear" closer to him)
Who is hit by the train first?
Does it matter if the train is going 5 MPH, or 500 MPH, or 186,000 MPS?
Currently, UDFj-39546284 is officially regarded as a galaxy "candidate", leaving open the possibility that it might be some other kind of structure. The best enlarged images of the object are heavily pixalated. I agree that the James Webb Space Telescope should be able to provide greater clarity to such distant objects, but that doesn't necessarily mean the light from such objects are not observable today. Obviously they are, but just not very clear. The "redshift is estimated by carefully studying them in Hubble images taken through a range of different filters." While redshift was used, it's used as a current estimation, not necessarily meaning it to be definitive. I will correctly restate my previous comment by saying that that the structure is estimated to be about 13.2 billion years old, not necessarily 13.2 billion light years away which was incorrect on my part.
I agree that using redshift alone as a guide for measuring the linear distance of extremely distant objects isn't always reliable. But then I didn't say anything about the redshift. As jayrandom pointed out, it could in fact be much more distant than 13.2 billion light years away, taking into account the acceleration of the expansion of space. In other words, it could well be that the object may appear to be 13.2 billion years old because that's the estimated time it has taken for the light we see right now it's taken to reach us. If an extremely distant object, say billions of light years away, is highly redshifted as we see it now, then it's not too unreasonable to think that some of those objects have in fact becoming even more remote, possibly moving away faster than light speed due to the expansion of space over billions of years and are well beyond the particle horizon of the universe, or beyond the area of the universe that is observable to us.
UFDj-39546284 could indeed be much farther than 13.2 billion light years away from us. I don't know if it's 30 billion light years away from us, but it's certainly possible. That said, things don't necessarily have to be extremely distant in space to be farther back in time. Which is where long exposures come in. The longer the exposure, the better faint, or even unseen objects begin to more clearly appear. As has been indicated, we're not only peering at objects that are extremely distant in space, but objects that are also extremely distant in time.
Pure hype just to gain headlines and possible funding? Well that's possible, but I'm not so sure that's necessarily the case here. That's not to say things aren't sometimes hyped though. Is there any documentation to support that it's pure hype? Is there any documentation that shows Hubble and Spitzer were jointly used in the discovery of this image? Seems to me there wouldn't be any valid reason not to acknowledge it.
Granted, the object is said to be too faint to be confirmed spectroscopically with Hubble or any of the telescopes in operation today, thus the need for the James Webb Space Telescope. So UFDj-39546284 currently remains listed as a "candidate". I do think that knowledge of what Spitzer has provided plays a big part, but I've seen nothing to suggest that Spitzer was actually used for the image itself. All that seems to be mentioned, at least from what I've seen, is that the image is the result of the joint ESA/NASA Hubble project using the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, and that Hubble has been pushed to its limits to capture such an object. Hubble has had better intrumentation and software installed. That's not saying much because the image isn't clear. There's just enough to see that it looks like it has a primative galaxy-like shape. I had seen mentioned somewhere that it required around 100 hours of long exposure to collect enough light to detect this faint object in addition to using different filters. I would guess that the 13.2 billion years figure is based on known Type 1a Supernovae, perhaps SN Primo dating back to about 9 billion years ago, but that's just an assumption on my part.
As of January 2012, the most distant Type 1a Supernova called SN Primo, as far as I know, is thought to have occurred about 9 billion years ago. Relative to the OP's original question, just in reference to a standard candle Type 1a Supernova (SM Primo), 9 billion years is still vastly more distant than 1 billion years as was asked by Follower of X, although Follower of X was asking about distance in terms of light years.
First, I want to be clear that what I posted was not directed toward you or anything you posted. Cosmological distances are like a house of cards, each built upon the level before. They use Parallax to determine the distance to a Cepheid Variable, then they use a Cepheid Variable to determine the distance to the nearest type 1a supernova. At each stage there is a margin for error that is compounded the further back in time we look.
With regard to Hubble and Spitzer working together, see Cluster Lensing And Supernova Survey with Hubble (CLASH).
Concerning UDFj-39546284, it has not even been spectroscopically confirmed, so they do not have any idea how far away it may be. They say it is 13.2 billion light years away, but it could be much more or much less than the stated distance. By leaving out the margin for error they are not providing us with necessary information concerning their certainty.
So all we have is an image. And we are depending on light being our vision....and the speed of light being the fastest speed.
The visible spectrum is only a tiny portion of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. That is why we also have instruments that look in Ultra-Violet and Infrared, all the way into the radio end of the spectrum. Which is where radio-astronomy comes in. Stars emit most of their light in the visible spectrum (between 400 and 700 nanometers), but they also emit photons in different wavelengths, and we can detect those photons as well, even though our eyes cannot.
In no case have we observed any object in space-time capable of moving faster than the speed of light. There is, however, a theoretical particle called a Tachyon which is supposed to travel no slower than the speed of light, but it has never been observed.
First, I want to be clear that what I posted was not directed toward you or anything you posted. Cosmological distances are like a house of cards, each built upon the level before. They use Parallax to determine the distance to a Cepheid Variable, then they use a Cepheid Variable to determine the distance to the nearest type 1a supernova. At each stage there is a margin for error that is compounded the further back in time we look.
With regard to Hubble and Spitzer working together, see Cluster Lensing And Supernova Survey with Hubble (CLASH).
Concerning UDFj-39546284, it has not even been spectroscopically confirmed, so they do not have any idea how far away it may be. They say it is 13.2 billion light years away, but it could be much more or much less than the stated distance. By leaving out the margin for error they are not providing us with necessary information concerning their certainty.
Thanks Glitch. The links are excellent, although some seem to fail to include a publication date for the webpages. That's not your fault and, unfortunately, it's not an unusual practice either. NASA does the same thing on many of their webpages when announcing this or that. It can be a bit of an irritation in terms of historical reference to news articles. But that's just my own personal gripe about some blogs, webpages, etc., related to astronomy, physics and news announcements. But that's not a major issue.
As I indicated to Jay, I didn't take it as personal. As always, I appreciate your contributions and input, as well as those of others. There's always something to learn. Anyway, (1) I recognized (after posting and thanks to your post) a descriptive error on my part which I felt necessary to correct, that being to clarify that there's a difference between light years to describe distance and light years to describe age. And (2) raised a question about Hubble/Spitzer as to the object in question. I know your post was simply a clarification not directed to anyone in particular. Same thing for me. I was just posting questions of things I wasn't aware of, which I don't think is necessarily just hype. It could be, but I'm just not seeing it.
Maybe I'd better start being more mindful about how I express things ? Speaking for myself, there's always something to learn, and that's what I appreciate about many of the members here, such as yourself and others, sharing their own views and knowledge. We all can find something new to learn, although perhaps some subjects may a bit more difficult and involved for some than for others.
As I indicated, the links are excellent and very informative, but I don't see anything in them that indicate both Hubble and Spitzer were used with regard to the image of UDFj-39546284. Maybe I'm somehow missing it. Both CLASH and CANDELS are used by Hubble and Spitzer, but I'm not still not sure that Spitzer was directly used in the image itself. As near as I can tell, the image itself is from Hubble by gathering light for a very long time. I could be wrong about that. I can't say Spitzer wasn't used at all, but maybe not as the primary tool for the image. Rather, all I've seen is that Hubble had used a variety of filters to capture the image, as well as very long exposure. That said, I certainly think that with all the tools and techniques that are available today, both land-based and space-based, there's no reason not to take full advantage of them, or at least for as much time as can be reserved.
Here's a NASA article about UDFj-39546284. Nothing mentioned about Spitzer in relation to the image. This was last updated January 28, 2011. Over the last 10 months, I'm sure other tools have since been used in an effort to better refine the image, which is still unclear and heavily pixelated. NASA - Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe
As I mentioned earlier, the object has not been spectroscopically examined, from what I understand because we don't have the right tools in space yet to do that for such remote objects. Thus, attaching an age to it is currently an estimation, not a confirmation. The object could be much older, or as you indicated, much younger. Redshifting alone with current equipment isn't accurate enough to more accurately determine how old or how far the object actually is. As you also said (and I agreed), we'll need the James Webb Space Telescope to flesh out more precise details. That's going to be interesting. The object is just too far and faint to get a clear image with current equipment. But we do see something there and it does have features that resemble a primative galaxy. I think the estimates are probably somewhat close considering the lack of more precise instruments to confirm it. Hubble's Deep Field Surveys and Ultra Deep Field Surveys have brought in some very remarkable discoveries pushing the formation of the earliest primative galaxies back farther than ever imagined. That's pretty exciting stuff.
Regardless, I think it's fair to say the object is indeed very old and very distant. And getting back to my original post, it's much older than anything in the area of 1 billion light years away as Follower of X was thinking (in terms of how remote some objects are that can currently be detected). That was really the whole point for my original post, to keep it simple and let Follower of X understand that there are objects in the universe we can detect that are a lot more than a billion light years away and more than 1 billion years old.
Anyway, I hope that helps put things at ease and helps clear up any possible misunderstanding about anything I said. I'm just in it for the interactive communication and sharing of views. I haven't taken any responses personal or assumed they were jecessarily being directed to me. Rather, your views and those of others are greatly appreciated.
I got a dumber question. If the Hubble looks at a star 1 million light years away. Doesn't it see it closer than 1 million light years away since it's going further in (by zooming into it) as opposed to the naked eye?
I got a dumber question. If the Hubble looks at a star 1 million light years away. Doesn't it see it closer than 1 million light years away since it's going further in (by zooming into it) as opposed to the naked eye?
Sorry if this was brught up already.
Answers to this question page 4 and top of page 5 of this thread.
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.
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.
) prior to the 8 minutes being over we should be able to see it sooner...!? no? The same idea would go with seeing something further. If we zoom into a planet that splits into 2 that is 2 billion light years away we see it as how it is 2 billion light years away but if we zoom further or bring it back we should be seeing it change in time...?
you don't make sense. This is sooooooo simple, yet obviously beyond your reasoning.
Thanks Glitch. The links are excellent, although some seem to fail to include a publication date for the webpages. That's not your fault and, unfortunately, it's not an unusual practice either. NASA does the same thing on many of their webpages when announcing this or that. It can be a bit of an irritation in terms of historical reference to news articles. But that's just my own personal gripe about some blogs, webpages, etc., related to astronomy, physics and news announcements. But that's not a major issue.
