Most Distant Object in Universe Discovered

The_Jazzman writes, "Using the 200-inch Hale Telescope at Mt. Palomar Observatory in California and the 157-inch Mayall Telescope at Kitt Peak, Ariz., astronomers, it seems, have disocvered the ">most distant object in the known universe: a quasar in the constellation of Cetus the Whale." The beastie is about 13 million light years away, making it quite old as well, of course. Update that's 13 billion. Stupid typo :)

Comments

Question to all: Do you think it is _still_ there?

[Taco Cowboy]

Thirtenn Billion Years is a Very Long Time [tm], even for a quasar, it is _still_ a very long time.

So, do you think that quasar is _still_ there? It it is not a quasar now, what will it be? A white dwarf? A blackhole? What?!

Re:Will we ever see the big bang?

[Greg Merchan]

The microwave background is a remnant of the big bang (ATCT). It's in the microwave range (NPI) because of a redshift. Light emitted from object moving away from you will be redshifted also. The cause of the redshifts is different.

The microwaves are (part of) the initial energy, they've been streched as the universe has expanded. It's like drawing a wavy line on a balloon and inflating. The wavelength increases as the surface gets larger because (somehow) it's 'connected' to that surface. (wavelength increase = frequency decrease = redshift)

Light from receding emitters is redshifted in the same manner as a sonic doppler shift. (A train whistle lowers in pitch once it passes you.) This is easier to show with pictures and I think it's probably understood, so I'm leave it at that.

There are still other sources of redshifts. As light is emmitted from a massive body, it loses energy to escape gravity. A loss of energy is the same as (or causes?) a redshift. (Energy per photon is greater at greater frequency.)

There are still other sources of redshift, but I don't remember all of them. Technically, these examples can be seen as manifestations of the same thing, but that's for some other time.

ATCT = According To Current Theory
NPI = No Pun Intended

Re:Something I never understand

[bineronbrain]

Think of a expanding circle. (Dropping a few dimmensions makes calculation easy.) Say the ballon adds 33% per second. Now say you are stuck on this circle traveling 3 cm per second. Now if you mark two point that is 3 cm apart on the baloon at time zero. You would expect it take you, one second to traverse between the points if the circle didn't get bigger. But since it does, the amount of time is longer than a second. To calculate how long let's use one more simpifying assumption. That you move for 1/2 second then the baloon expands, then you move, etc. With this assumption after the first 1/2 second. you moved to a place 1.5 cm from your goal but then the circle expands which adds 0.5 cm to your journey. After another 1/2 second. you are 0.5 cm from your goal. but then the circle expands again making you 0.833... cm from your goal. After another 1/2 second you pass your goal. So with this simple modle we have taken probably about 1.3 second instead of 1 second. To do this calculation more correctly we would enploy calculus which is about the same as changing the 1/2 second in the example to an infinitesmal (roughly speeking, without resorting epsilon-deltas) So in conclusion, it takes more time then strait distance speed calculation to figure out how long it takes light to reach us in an expanding universe.

Expansion Rate of the Universe.

[kevlar]

Check out this article about how the most widely accepted value for H0 was determined using Type Ia Supernovae.

Type Ia Supernovae are known to have a specific luminosity peak. From this you can determine its distance. From its spectral redshift, they determine its recessional velocity. Using this information, they determine that the Universe is between 12.5 and 15.6 Billion years old. It puts H0 at 64km/sec/mpc.

The Supernova used for this paper was SN1998bu.

typo alert!

[ywwg]

It is 13 billion lightyears away, not 13 million.

Slashdot Accuracy? (OT)

[JustShootMe]

OK, I just have to say this - and I have the karma to burn, so...

Why can't you guys do even some basic proofreading of your stories? So far, out of the past, maybe, 20 stories, probably 18 of them have had SOME kind of error in them. I'm not expecting perfection, but Rob, you said yourself in "Geeks in Space" that you are now a journalist. Journalists check their facts and journalists proofread.

I mean, come on. You can make a few mistakes here and there, that's fine. I'm not going to go screaming about every single one. But, really.

BTW, Who's jimjag?

If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

a pre-FAQ FAQ

[zyqqh]

To answer some questions I see coming:

1. No, it's not "red." The image on the page is not a visible-spectrum photograph; it's most likely false-color from the lower end of the X-ray spectrum
2. Yes, this is significant, since it basically allows us to see 13 billion years back in time. That's about 3/4 of the way to the beginning of the universe by current estimates (which are, on the average, circa 16-18 billion).
3. Yes, there most likely are structures that are "further" (or, equivalently, older) than this one, but probably not by far. The high energy during the first 1-2 billion years would have most likely prevented the formation of large structures. The first proto-stars are thought to have appeared at circa 2B-3B years from Da Bang.
4. No, Elvis is not there. Neither is LinuxOne's innovative and brilliant release that will soon change the world.