Slashdot Mirror
Astronomers Find Stars 7 Billion Light Years Away
StArSkY writes "The Age has an article about an international team of astronomers that has discovered 14 galaxies, opening up a new era of 'galaxy hunting'. Using an infrared instrument in Chile (the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope ) — the researchers have been able to look through the glare of 20 Quasar's to identify previously obscured galaxies. 'Light from the newly found galaxies comes from the time the universe was about 6 billion years old, less than half its current age. By studying the light, the researchers have determined they are starburst galaxies that form lots of new stars -- the equivalent of 20 suns a year. Dr Murphy, who began working on the project while a research fellow at the University of Cambridge, described the results as a great leap forward. The findings have been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal. '"
I remember reading about star-making galaxies and how the stresses of gravity were used to "tear" space apart and create matter from the resulting energy differential. I wonder if that's similar to these starburst galaxies.
Wouldn't it be nice to live longer than our measly 70-90 years and be able to watch the progression of our knowledge? Reading this kind of article always makes me regret that I was perhaps born this early in humanity's history.
Hmmm, is this far enough?
The point of the article is not that the galaxies were 7 billion light years away, there have been galaxies observed over 10 billion light years from us.
The real story is that these galaxies were in front of quasars and the infrared technique has now allowed observation of them.
If we are seeing them 7 billion light years away, and we are 4.5 billion light years old, that means they won't see us coming for another 2.5 billion years. Oh the poor bastards.
Come on, Zonk, learn how to use an apostrophe.
"Dr Murphy, who began working on the project while a research fellow at the University of Cambridge, described the results as a great leap forward."
Shouldn't that be a great leap BACKWARDS?
We start tomorrow.
I have only done this once before, so you will be responsible for bringing your own guns and supplies.
Isn't it conceivable that light coming from such a distance may not be traveling in a straight line? ESPECIALLY since there are 20 quasars between here and the place we assume the galaxies to be. Quasars would exert powerful gravitational pulls like black holes which theoretically should bend any light passing them. Is it possible these galaxies are not actually as far as 10 billion light year away after all?
Our knowledge today about what makes the universe tick is vastly beyond what you claim.
Don't take this personally, Anon. But while YOU may not know these these things, a lot of the rest of us do.
If those stars still exist... If they do, they must have changed quite a bit before we received data from them...
Hello ! this is me emitting radio signals from a 7 billion light years away planet, come and join me for dinner, what do you expect to find when you arrive, even if you could get there instantly ? ;-))
I mean, given Einstein "curving of the universe", we could even be looking at ourselves 7 billion years ago ;-)
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
a distant galaxy, far far away... Score: 1, Redundant- That labeling seems accurate.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Have you considered that you may be born at the very end of humanities history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
This is old news. These stars were around 7 Billion years ago.
"opening up a new era of 'galaxy hunting'"
Yawn.
Nothing more annoying than a bunch of clueless journalists trying to drum up an anecdotal case as the beginning of a new grandiose trend that will possibly change our lives.
I wrote this 7 billion light years ago.
"La presi e te la pagai (480.000 Lire)"
Has anyone ever considered the theory that the universe is not only ever expanding but also ever recreating in the middle? Also shouldn't we be able to tell where the middle of the universe is by obsering in which direction we can see the farthest? I'm in no way an astronomer, i just have some personal theories.
You just found the mirror.
Didn't your mum ever teach you, "look but don't touch"?
Just a quick couple of references on coral reefs and the oldest tree you may find interesting.
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
'Starlight! Starlight!'
Informatus Technologicus
We all know the universe was created 4,000 years ago. There is no way these stars are 7 billion years old.
Was that oldest tree perhaps growing in the "kindergarden"?
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
I wonder if they'll ever "look back in time" this way enough to have at least a hint of observational evidence that cosmic inflation really took place? That would be interesting to know, because it's such a challenged and "illogical" theory on a few levels.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
> I have it on good authority that the world and the heavens are 4,500 years old, give or take a few hundred.
:-)
Except that you screwed it up. If the world was created in October 4004 BC (the Wilberforce solution) then it is 2007+4004=6011 years old this week (tomorrow, IIRC). Rather more than 4500. If you intend to appeal to a bad authority, get it right. Otherwise, the proper smart-aleck quality is lost.
BTW, did the good bishop ever reveal his calculations? I have the feeling that he issued a response accurate to the minute just to shut up people asking the question and demanding more precision than one gets from adding Genesis begat ages. Much like King Knute of England, Norway, and Denmark who made a big show of commanding the waves to stop to shut up his fawning courtiers when they didn't (boy, would he have been embarrassed if they did quiet down, for some reason
I disagree somewhat with the statement that "it isn't even about right or wrong". That is true in the moral sense, but not in the sense of "Are we right about how this works, or not?"
Some years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a short book titled "The Relativity of Wrong". It is an excellent book, highly recommended reading. In it, he describes how someone lectured him on how little we understand about the universe. This was his reply:
"... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
So maybe we do not have all the answers. And the answers we do have, in an absolute sense, may not turn out to be "right" in the long run. But as we learn more, every year, they become less wrong than before...
In case I did not make the point adequately, here is a link to an excerpt from the book:
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
I might be completely mistaken here, but IIRC, if you send e.g. a theoretical laser beam straight up into space, after a couple of billion years, it should return to the point of origin from the other side (even though it was traveling in a straight line, for all that we can tell) because of space-time being bent into itselve ('unendlich in sich geschlossen', was the term in german, it think).
So, how far 'back' do we hae to be able to see into space in order to see the milky way being formed? Or am i completely outdated with that theory?
My original post was a reference to an actual classified ad that appeared (I believe) in the San Francisco Chronicle. A picture of this ad has become a web classic. You can probably find it with Google. The ad said, verbatim:
WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me.
This is not a joke. P.O. Box 322, Oakview, CA 93022.
You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons.
Safety not guraranteed. I have only done this once before.
Yeah, I think we all caught your sarcasm. Obviously you meant 6,000 years old.
I've never been able to understand this seeming contradiction.. I'm sure this will be a stupid question..
It's accepted that the universe (spacetime) is expanding. So as we go back in time, everything should be closer together, right?
But you always hear that we have seen "further" in distance, hence further "back" in time.
Light obviously travels faster than the expansion of spacetime, otherwise we'd never see anything, therefore there must be a limit to how far back we can see, because the oldest light would have passed us by already. Does that make sense?
So as I see it, there is only so far back we should be able to see...?
... I know most draenei can do it in 15 mins no sweat :)