Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Very Large Telescope Captures New 27-Megapixel Deep Field

Posted by Soulskill on from the awesome dept.

xyz writes "European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope has captured the deepest ground based U-band image of the universe yet. The image contains more than 27 million pixels and is the result of 55 hours of observations with the VIMOS instrument. 'Galaxies were detected that are a billion times fainter than the unaided eye can see and over a range of colours not directly observable by the eye. This deep image has been essential to the discovery of a large number of new galaxies that are so far away that they are seen as they were when the Universe was only 2 billion years old.'"

9 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Context vs Hubble Deep Field by chanrobi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This new "picture" is taken in UV for which the Hubble ultra deep field is still the deepest image taken in visible wavelengths. Which provides, if you believe the current age estimate of the universe (13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old) means Hubble is still going back further. 0.73 Billion years vs 2 billion years since the beginning of the universe.

    Just to give a sense of perspective in case you read the title and went so what?

    1. Re:Context vs Hubble Deep Field by syntaxglitch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And how fast are we moving relative to the source of the big bang?

      All points equally in the entire universe are "the source of the big bang". The big bang isn't just the origin point for all matter, it's the origin point for the entire universe and all space and time. If you want to "see" the big bang, or as close as we can see, look at the CMB.

  2. Re:80 MB TIFF by v1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    don't feel sorry for them... feel sorry for the poor schmucks that actually CLICK on the image link and expect their browser to render it before the wheels grind to a halt.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  3. How much area does this cover? by superid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, I know..... a lot....

    What I mean is, if I look up in the sky, how big of a patch of the sky does this picture cover? The size of the full moon? Bigger? Smaller than a grain of sand at arms length?

    1. Re:How much area does this cover? by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just tried it by holding a ruler at arms length up at the moon. The moon isn't quite full tonight, but it's pretty close, so I can guesstimate where the rest of it is from the curvature of what's there.
      I found the moon to be about 1.2cm with the ruler held at arms length - about twice what you're suggesting. Perhaps I have very short arms?

      I don't dispute your maths, but I would like to know where the discrepancy in my experimental evidence is coming from...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  4. Re:Filament-like structures by art6217 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You may have a better vision. I can only see the cow.

  5. According to my calculations by dvh.tosomja · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I count galaxies in 1/8 x 1/14 of that image to be 150. In the whole image there are approx. 16800 galaxies. Since this is 14x21 arcminutes and 1 degree is 60minutes, hence this is 0.3 degree of 360 degree sky, I thinkg there are... 6.752*10^9 galaxies in the visible universe!

  6. Determined nominatively? by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did anyone notice the name of the press officer?

    Dr. Henri Boffin.

    Nominative determinism in action.

    --
    Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
  7. Re:Hmm... by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's the deal with TIFF anyways? I convert that 80mb file losslessly to PNG, and it brings it down to 47mb. Almost 50%!

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...