Slashdot Mirror
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)."
a desire for us to get off its lawn.
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".
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Redshift
They look it up in the Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy - Universe Edition.
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...
I'm an infovore...
I can't be the only one that was thinking it after reading the title can I?
I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
I don't get it. Patcpong seemed to have a genuine question. Mantaar seemed to give a genuine answer. I don't see Creationist claims in there at all.
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
I'm an infovore...
It's general paranoia based on an old pattern.
:P
It's starts with curiosity: "How do they know how old it is?"
Which gets extended to skepticism: "How could they possibly be sure? Maybe their assumptions are wrong."
Which somehow becomes rejection: "Scientists don't really know anything, it's all just belief!"
Then the gigantic illogical leap: "Thus any alternative hypothesis I propose is equally viable."
And then the 'reveal' which is: "So I bet my spiritual guide book could serve as a physics textbook if you interpreted it literally!"
Unfortunately, you can't really tell the difference between a normal reasonable person and a closet creationist until you're several steps in. It kinda pisses me off, the way the Creationists have adopted the strategy of Intelligent Design and hiding their beliefs as though they're just genuine scientific skeptics with an open mind, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Though I agree with you, in this case I think this was legitimate curiosity, and the GP was just being paranoid. It won't take that long to tell if I'm wrong.
The enemies of Democracy are
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?
"Old man yells at systemd"
Astrology is to Astronomy as is a someone with a dowling rod is to a civil engineer.
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.
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".
I'm pleased to have a Basset Hound living in my home. Survival of the fittest did not make him. Humans did. Through the selection mechanism of Intelligent Design. Get the fuck over it. Have you ever seen a corn field? Is it shocking that the modern female is fucking sexy compared to the troglodytic premodern?
And do you believe that this same mechanism accounts for all genetic diversity? Because if you are only talking about selective breeding, then guess what? That's NOT capital-I-D Intelligent Design, you dumb fuck. That's "selective breeding", or in the case of attractive females "sexual selection", both about as mundane and mainstream of theories as evolution itself and not having special theory names.
What you're doing is like me going "Der, Evolution isn't necessarily about random changes altering populations through natural selection you moron! To me Evolution is about species wanting to change because they feel in their hearts that they can be better!" No, wrong, that's not what evolution is. And "Intelligent Design" is not the theory that some things on earth were designed by an (our) intelligence. It's a theory that is an alternate explanation for the diversity of all species. Though I give it more respect than it deserves by calling it a theory.
Look, it's like this: there is no God but there is Intelligent Design.
There is no Intelligent Design without God. Not because you have to believe in God to believe in ID, but because it naturally follows. The primary theorem of ID is that our intelligence is to complex to have arisen naturally, and must have been created by some other intelligence. Well where did that intelligence come from? The same ideas of ID suggest that it couldn't have arisen naturally, so there must be another designer... and so on. Now, if you're religious, that's easy, the original Intelligent Designer is a supernatural being with no beginning or end and thus no need for a creater.
If you're not religious and believe in Intelligent Design, then you're just a giant retard.
And furthermore, there is no difference between a normal reasonable person and a "closet creationist"
Of course there is. A reasonable person, including a reasonable Creationist, is up-front with their beliefs. Lying, duplicitous douchebags who inherently know that their position is not reasonable, but want to trick you into accepting it anyway, feign open-minded skepticism that suddenly turns into evangelism.
Anyway, in summary, you're a fucking idiot--I on the other hand, am quite a bit more gifted and talented than you--but hey bud, you can do better, and I'd like to help you.
Of course you are! Your mom was right, you're special!
Let me help you: there is, unequivocally, at least some flavor of intelligent design in our world.
And with no capital letters there, the answer is: duh! The computers we're using right now were "intelligently designed" by humans. That's not "Intelligent Design". You should at least know what something is before you defend it, jackass.
I fucking hate you.
Aw, but I love you! I think you're very stupid, but I still love you.
It'd be really, really hilarious to me if your whole retarded polemic was because I used the phrase "Intelligent Design" in obvious reference to the non-scientific alternate theory for speciation, while in your personal view there is something that could be called "intelligent design" but isn't what is commonly called -- by anyone -- ID.
The enemies of Democracy are
Realists know that betting against the current science when it regards dates is about as safe as a bet as you can make. It is 100% guaranteed to be found incorrect, probably within 50 years. Date setters just want attention. If they were intellectually honest, they wouldn't bother.
All right here's your person with a chip on his shoulder. Regardless as whether or not you take the calculations behind the age of the universe to be valid, to claim that date-setting is intellectually dishonest is rather stupid. Let's say that 100 years ago, I came up with a model of the universe that resulted in the age of the universe being 300 million years old. Later when evidence is found indicating that there exist objects that are 1 billion years old, my model will clearly be proven to be wrong. If I had never been "intellectually dishonest" by calculating the age of the universe, my model may have never been proven wrong.
These date-setters are basing their ideas on the well-accepted theories that allow much of the modern world to function as it does (i.e., relativity). I'm not claiming that holes will never be found in them. But to claim that no work should be done based on these models would be like saying that Bohr should have never published his model for the atom because it only worked for atoms with one electron.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
You can neither prove that the creationist is "wrong" nor that the scientist is "right". Nor can you prove that the creationist answer is "worse" or that the scientific answer is "better". It depends what you want out of the whole thing.
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.
A bit of respect on both sides when faced with the fundamental unknowables of the universe would go a long way.
This is total crap.
Scientists aren't running around trying to push science as an alternative to philosophy; they're simply gathering evidence for physical, real-world things, making theories based on the evidence, and testing those theories. That's how science works.
It's the religionists who have declared war on science, not the other way around. The religionists are the ones who are trying to push their "philosophy" (if you can really call it that) as an alternative to science. Sure, churches may use lightning rods because they work, but since evolution mainly deals with things in the far past which can't be easily backed up with experiments, and since this directly contradicts the writings in their holy books, they attack it. If the Bible said that atoms couldn't be split, they'd probably be denying that nuclear weapons exist.
I'm sure the scientists will be happy to start respecting the religionists when the religionists stop trying to destroy science.