Hubble Finds a Galaxy 12.8 Billion Years Old

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) has discovered the 12.8B year old galaxy now known as A1689-zD1. Using gravitational lensing of the massive Abell 1689 cluster of galaxies, they were able to find a surprisingly bright young galaxy from only 700 million years after the Big Bang, during the cosmic 'dark ages.' Researchers are itching to study the object with the upcoming Atacama Large Millimeter Array (to go online in 2012) and James Webb Space Telescope (to launch in 2013)."

Comments

Re:Do they cut it in half and count the rings?

[TheOnlyJuztyn]

Redshift

Old and new...

[Mantaar]

Depending on your particular point in time. See, I'm not far a way from Paris, since I live in Europe. Someone in Tokyo though is pretty far away from Paris. Now you have to understand that 'time' is nothing more than another dimension. The only difference is that so far we only know how to move in one direction. So if something is far away from you in time, this could mean it's either in the future or very, very old, from your point of view.

From our point of view, this galaxy is very old, since it existed (in the form in which we are seeing it today) a looong time ago. But if we take, say the Big Bang as the point in time to relate to, this thing isn't all that old, but rather new, young, so to speak.

Keep in mind though, that we are seeing a very young galaxy now because the light has been traveling a while. Sort of like... I take a picture of me and then send it to India. Because of the crude nature of the Indian postal system (and the ones in between), you will only receive this picture one month or so after it was taken. So I might have grown a beard. You are seeing a young galaxy, because the medium you're seeing it through took a while to reach us. But in reality, this galaxy is rather old, because it has been growing old ever since the photons that create the image we are seeing today departed from that galaxy to finally interact with our eyes and fulfill their destiny (ouch, that was really a pathetic attempt at making this sound great).

sigh. I'm only a layman, so I might have explained this pretty badly. You might want to take a look at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone it explains the general concept behind this all. Ah yeah, and relativity is worth a read, too ;-)

Re:This kind of thing confuses me

[ChromaticDragon]

So it's taken the light 12 odd billion years to arrive here, It always makes me wonder whether the galaxy is 12 billion years old, or 12 billion years away - and if it is the latter, does that in any way compare to the former?

We get a picture of a galaxy. We can tell from redshift of the characteristics of the light that we're getting to create that picture how far/old that light is. Since we're using the understanding that the speed of light is and has always been constant, how far away and how old are directly related. What people mean is that we're seeing a picture of a galaxy from a long, long time ago. Assuming it's still there, it'd be at least 12.8 billion years old.

Could you conceivably see the big bang with Hubble if the universe is only 13.5 billion years old? Does this mean they know roughly where the universe began and are looking in that direction? If they looked in the other direction, would they run out of things to see because nothing in the universe has traveled out that far yet?

Sure we know where the universe began - in your belly button. Seriously, the question doesn't quite make sense (or the answer doesn't make sense - take your pick). The analogy that might help is to think of the universe like a balloon - but only the rubber sheet. not the entire thing. Light, matter, everything is within and goes round that rubber sheet. The balloon is expanding. That's what's causing the redshift, more or less. If we reverse time and view the balloon as shrinking, everything collapses into the Big Bang. But there is no "place" where the universe started. It started everywhere.

However, I believe there is a theoretical limit beyond which we don't expect to be able to see anything. But it isn't because of the reasons you're positing. It's not because stuff isn't that far away. If I recall correctly, it has more to do with when we believe there was stuff to see.

And to see things that happened 12 billion years ago, would you need to look 12 billion years in the other direction from where they actually happened?

You would need to BE 12-billion light years in ANY direction from said event (and looking towards the event) AT 12-billion years past the event. Then the light from the event reaches you and you can see what happened 12 billion years ago. Say I fire 20 billion baseballs simultaneously in all directions at 60 miles an hour. Assuming no friction, interference, etc., if you are 60 miles away from where I was when I threw the balls at one hour after I threw them, you're gonna get smacked upside the head with a baseball and you'll get to experience my toss from an hour ago, 60 miles away.

Part of what makes this particular story rather interesting, is that not a lot of light is going to reach us from something that far away. If you think of my 20 billion baseballs, you can understand that at some distance you won't get hit because the balls get spread real thin rather quickly. The light from that galaxy is spread VERY thin. The fact we're seeing it at all is because of some nifty little tricks and a whole lot of luck. Basically we're taking advantage of an ENORMOUS magnifying glass to get a better look.

Re:This kind of thing confuses me

[chrisb33]

A lot of cosmology is non-intuitive, but that's what makes it cool :) I'm not an expert myself, but I can point you in the right direction:

Could you conceivably see the big bang with Hubble if the universe is only 13.5 billion years old? Essentially, yes! You can't see quite back to the big bang itself because at the very beginning the temperatures were too high to allow photons to move freely, but you can get pretty close by observing the Cosmic Microwave Background which was released when the universe became transparent.

Does this mean they know roughly where the universe began and are looking in that direction? If they looked in the other direction, would they run out of things to see because nothing in the universe has traveled out that far yet? This is always a sticking point of understanding, but the answer is simple - the universe began right where you are sitting right now! And, of course, every other point in space. Every observer sees the universe as expanding outward from themselves, which is usually explained by imagining pennies glued to an expanding balloon (every penny sees the other pennies moving away) or by this neat demonstration.

To connect these two answers, the CMB is in all directions around us (which is what made it so interesting in the first place - see the wikipedia link) so every direction is looking "back in time".

boy, it's old, just look at that crusty beard.....

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they know how old it is?

Because it's so far away?

How do they know it's so far away?

Because of how long its light took to reach us?

How do they know how long it's light took to reach us?

Well, light goes so fast, and it gets pulled this way and that on the way here and uhhhhhhhhh, well, we're totally guessing, OKAY!!!!!!!!

lol

Re:Do they cut it in half and count the rings?

[Chris Burke]

Your usage of "illogical" is not justified here. Under one definition of "viable", it is perfectly logical to go to step 4. Without defining "viable" your point is lost. But of course you define it how a scientist would, while someone else might define it as a religious person would. And therein lies the rub.

It's perfectly valid and justified, because the submarine-Creationist is attempting to make a scientific argument in order to debunk science to create an opportunity for them to inject Creationism as equally "viable" from a "should-be-taught-in-science-class" standpoint. So they've chosen to enter the scientific realm and are subject to science's definition of "logical".

If you build bridges based on the teachings of the bible, you'll quickly find out that it doesn't work. (Churches have lightning conductors because they do work.) But if you try to use the discoveries of science to pontificate on the philosophical nature of life, you'll quickly find that it doesn't work either. Dawkins is simply wrong on a philosophical level, just as Genesis is simply wrong on an evolutionary level.

I'm well aware of this fact. I'm a Christian who believes in God and Jesus as my savior and that for understanding our spiritual selves God and religion are the path, yet at the same time for understanding our physical world I believe the scientific method is better than a literal interpretation of a metaphorical creation story written by and for people thousands of years ago.

Science and religion can coexist because they deal with different aspects of life, and many people, including myself, have no problem with this. But that's not the kind of person I'm talking about. I'm talking about someone who does not believe they can coexist, and is thus making a calculated effort to replace actual science with their own religious beliefs draped in pseudo-scientific trappings. I'm talking about people who perceive the Theory of Evolution as a threat, and are thus attacking it and trying to keep it from being taught to children.

A bit of respect on both sides when faced with the fundamental unknowables of the universe would go a long way.

I do not nor do I feel I should have any respect for someone who relies on trickery and subterfuge to discredit others ideas, and to present their ideas as something other than what they are. When a Creationist lies about their beliefs and intentions in a calculated attempt to make their belief system seem like a viable scientific alternative worthy to be taught in science class, respect is the last thing that person should be given.

This isn't 1st century Rome, or the USSR. There's no legitimate reason for a Christian to hide their beliefs. As a Christian, I am particularly disgusted by those who think lying about being a Christian in any way furthers the cause.