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

Probably Doesn't Exist

[Prien715]

Even more interesting, I think, is the fact that since it's over 12 billion light years away, it probably doesn't exist anymore. We are in fact looking at ancient history. It could have developed "intelligent" life and they in turn, could've blown it and themselves up in some sort of "ideological" dispute.

And in a few billion years, we'll get to watch it "live".

Re:Probably Doesn't Exist

[hardburn]

I disagree, on the basis that there exists an objective reality that isn't defined by our perceptions. However, when speaking in terms of astrophysics, it's often convenient to say what's happening now, not 12 billion years ago. Of course, this is one part of a larger debate on perception defining reality.

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

[Mantaar]

Since c is most likely a constant we can say: something that is x light years away is y years old (actually, x = y for most cases, I think.). How do we measure the distance between our galaxy and another? No rocket science (but [theoretical] astrophysics):

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=45&cat=galaxies

Though I have no idea how exactly they did it this time. That's just the general procedure. According to TFA that's just an estimation and the exact age of the galaxy is yet to be determined; that's what those new telescopes would be useful for.

What's even more interesting though:

The astronomers used a relatively nearby massive cluster of galaxies known as Abell 1689, roughly 2.2 billion light-years away, to magnify the light from the more distant galaxy directly behind it. This natural telescope is called a gravitational lens. Remember: when you're glancing through space, you're not only taking a look at the 3 space dimensions, but the 4th, time, actually starts playing a role. The sun could explode right now and we would only notice it in about 8 minutes...

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

[SirSlud]

I know what you mean but:

Then the gigantic illogical leap: "Thus any alternative hypothesis I propose is equally viable."

Thats disingenuous. The beliefs of people you or I may disagree with are not formed in any more of a vacuum than our own. In general. Anybody who you believe to be absolutely wrong should never be 'credited' with coming up with a hypothesis you deem incorrect anymore than you should be credited with knowing the right answer. You turn it into a one person versus many issue. The reality of such disagreements is usually just one mass consensus versus another, and that person is just telling you what information they've been handed just the same as you are telling them what information you've been handed.

And then the 'reveal' which is: "So I bet my spiritual guide book could serve as a physics textbook if you interpreted it literally!"

That's just silly. Of course people exist who interpret things that way, but lets not cut off the nose to spite the face. I'm 110% atheist, but the vast majority of those people who pull that 'reveal' have devolved into a kind of detachment from reality that is no different than brilliant disbelievers who fall off the other end, whether it be through political, sexual, or scientific channels. You don't have to believe in God or disbelieve in God to think its counter productive to attempt to portray a weakness for critical thought as being unique to a particular theocracy.

People are a product of what they've been exposed to. Unfortunately, you can't really tell the difference between a normal reasonable person (whatever that means) and somebody you disagree with until you talk to them. Is that any surprise?