It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: The Universe Gives Birth - It's A New Baby Galaxy

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Astronomers using NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes have discovered a new baby galaxy that is surprisingly heavy for it's age. The galaxy was detected only from infrared images made by the Hubble telescope in Chile, hiding in a patch of sky 1/10 the size of the moon and has been named HUDF-JD2. The Hubbles cameras could not detect the galaxy using visble light
 



www.abc.net.au
Astronomers using two powerful telescopes say they are surprised to have detected a big baby galaxy, which is vastly heavy for its young age and its location in the early universe.

Astronomers have long theorised that galaxies form when stars gradually cluster together, with small galaxies preceding bigger galaxies.

But the stars in this cosmic infant, which is less than one billion-years-old, have eight times the mass of those in the 13 billion-year-old Milky Way, which contains Earth.

The findings are to be reported in November and December in the Astrophysical Journal.

Researchers using NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes found the young galaxy.

They looked back in time to a point some 800 million years after the Big Bang explosion, which many scientists believe gave birth to the universe.

Before the emergence of the first light source, the universe is thought to have been suffused with a generic glow, caused by microwave background radiation from the Big Bang.

The area is known as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, because the Hubble space telescope made a detailed survey there.

Rather than a 2D picture, the Hubble survey is a bit like a core sample of the cosmos, peering narrowly into the vast distance of space and therefore back in time about 13 billion years.

In general, older astronomical objects appear redder than younger objects.

The Spitzer telescope, which is sensitive to the light from older, redder stars, found the baby galaxy to be unexpectedly bright in infrared light, suggesting a very massive object, especially for its early era.

"At a time when the universe was only 800 million-years-old, it's positively gigantic."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I am still not quite sure of what they mean by looking backwards in time but this is a fascinating discovery. Once again a new discovery heralds a challange previously conceieved ideas and beliefs and places one more piece into the jigsaw puzzle we call life, The Universe and everything in it.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   
They're looking back in time because the microwaves being detected took about 13 billion years to get here to earth traveling at the speed of light. So what we're seeing today actually took place 13 billion years ago and the galaxy probably looks vastly different. So looking at any star, even the Sun, is like looking back in time. In the Sun's case, you're only looking 8 minutes back in time, but you're still not seeing a current picture of what's taking place on the surface of the Sun -- you're seeing what took place 8 minutes ago.

Nice find, by the way!



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I do understand the concept of light travelling but when reading and then pndering I gave myself quite a headache to think about it all. that time and space is a fascinating subject.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Great find Mayet



that time and space is a fascinating subject
LOL

Isn't it rather humbling to be "observing" something that actually took place over 13 billion light years ago. Huh? . . . 13 billion what the ago?

Even more mind boggling . . . that "baby" has gone thru 13 billion light years of growth. Would it be safe to say it's an adolescent or adult galaxy now?!


[edit on 9/28/2005 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Even more mind boggling . . . that "baby" has gone thru 13 billion light years of growth. Would it be safe to say it's an adolescent or adult galaxy now?!

Considering our own Milky Way is about 10bil. years old(i think) that would make it a very old galaxy. At almost the age of the universe (14.6bil) its definately an adult. Of course it could very well no longer be there anymore...or so vastly changed by collisions with other galaxies etc.. to be unrecognizable today.

That is what's so cool, we have no idea what most of our universe actually "looks" like today. We see this galaxy as a newborn when in actuality it's an old man, that is of course if it aint already gone.

Found this also:


National Geographic
"Although we are looking back to when the universe was only 6 percent of its present age, this galaxy has already built up a mass in stars eight times that of the Milky Way."
The galaxy represents a time when the universe was just 800 million years old. Scientists place the universe's age at around 14 billion years.
The potential evidence for early star birth may shake commonly held theories of galaxy formation.
"It's telling us that star formation and the processes that led to the collapse of galaxies probably occurred at much earlier times than we thought," Ellis said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It will be interesting to see if/how the new data changes current models...cool find










[edit on 29-9-2005 by Rren]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Yeah what he said



(sorry dble post)

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Rren]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
LOL

Isn't it rather humbling to be "observing" something that actually took place over 13 billion light years ago. Huh? . . . 13 billion what the ago?


Actually, you're observing something that happened about 13 billion years ago at a location about 13 billion light-years away from Earth.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
wecomeinpeace,
noted and understood, just a slip of the keys.

Rren,
Our galaxy, Milky Way, is said to be approx. 13,600 ± 800 million years old and the best estimate as to the age of the universe is 13,700 million years.

Adding the two time intervals gives the age of the Milky Way, 13,600 ± 800 million years.

The currently best estimate of the age of the Universe, as deduced, e.g., from measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background, is 13,700 million years. The new observations thus indicate that the first generation of stars in the Milky Way galaxy formed soon after the end of the ~200 million-year long "Dark Ages" that succeeded the Big Bang.

link

Remembering a documentary in which, I think it was, Carl Sagan echoing
"billions and billions and billions and . . ."

Mayet, another headache in the making :O) ?!

[edit on 9/29/2005 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Congratulations Universe!

*valhall wanders off trying to figure out the proper baby shower gift for a Universe*

My daughter and I have had quite the discussions on how looking up into the night sky is like peering through the looking glass into the far far distant past. It's a mind bender really, when you start considering that the thing you are looking at isn't even there anymore it's over there?, wait maybe over there?


lol



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Hey Val,

How about a:

Baby Universe Gift Certificate or Gift Card

Though I'm not sure how far $25 or $50 would go after billions and billions and billions and billions of years of inflation!? :O)

Then again, the interest that will have accrued during shipping would be astronomical. [no pun intended]:O)

[edit on 9/29/2005 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
You need to take into account some facts here.

First, the Hubble telescope can't even get a good picture of the moon, so how is it going to tell us about a "baby galaxy?"

Let's get real.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
You need to take into account some facts here.

First, the Hubble telescope can't even get a good picture of the moon, so how is it going to tell us about a "baby galaxy?"

Let's get real.


LMAO...this is one of the funnier things I've read here lately. Mainly because I can tell you're dead serious.

Here's where you can start learning about the Hubble telescope.

hubblesite.org...

but I'd recommend a remedial read-up on optics.

Here's an experiment for you. Take a basic set of binoculars and stand in front of your bathroom vanity mirror and see if you can see yourself. Now go out and see if you can see a bird in a tree 100 yards away. Same principle. The Hubble was not designed to see close things. It can't even focus on the Sun, let alone the moon.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

by resistance
You need to take into account some facts here.

Comparing this to taking pictures of the moon is apples to oranges.


The newly discovered HUDF-JD2 galaxy, which would lie inside the circle, is not seen by telescopes reading visible light. Bottom image: Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer is able to "see" the young galaxy as a faint red spot




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Remembering a documentary in which, I think it was, Carl Sagan echoing
"billions and billions and billions and . . ."


Carl Sagan...what a brilliant and passionate scientist, philosopher, author and narrator he was. I remember watching those old Cosmos docos years ago. Simply the sound of his voice could transport me billions of light years away in my mind, even without the pretty graphics. You could hear his own personal awe for the workings of the universe with his every spoken word. A man sorely missed.




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Just to clarify, the HST didn't actually *see* the galaxy being referenced within the 'ultra deep field' picture:



This visible-light image does not show the galaxy, indicating that its visible light has been absorbed by traveling billions of light-years through intervening hydrogen.
[snip]
The galaxy was detected using Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS). But at near-infrared wavelengths it is very faint and red.
[snip]
The Spitzer Infrared Array Camera (IRAC), easily detects the galaxy at longer infrared wavelengths. Spitzer's IRAC is sensitive to the light from older, redder stars, which should make up most of the mass in a galaxy.
source


see images



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by resistance
You need to take into account some facts here.

First, the Hubble telescope can't even get a good picture of the moon, so how is it going to tell us about a "baby galaxy?"

Let's get real.


LMAO...this is one of the funnier things I've read here lately. Mainly because I can tell you're dead serious.

Here's where you can start learning about the Hubble telescope.

hubblesite.org...

but I'd recommend a remedial read-up on optics.

Here's an experiment for you. Take a basic set of binoculars and stand in front of your bathroom vanity mirror and see if you can see yourself. Now go out and see if you can see a bird in a tree 100 yards away. Same principle. The Hubble was not designed to see close things. It can't even focus on the Sun, let alone the moon.


So if the thing's too big to look at what's important (i.e. our own solar system) then why don't we put something smaller up there?

I flat out don't believe these pictures. They are virtual realty -- pictures of what we WOULD see if we COULD see based on data programmed into the Hubble computer.

If they can't tell me what IS there, I'm not about to believe them when they tell me what MIGHT be there (if all their calculations and data input is correct that goes into the Hubbel telescope that tells it what it SHOULD see if it COULD see.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Carl Sagan...what a brilliant and passionate scientist, philosopher, author and narrator he was. I remember watching those old Cosmos docos years ago.


The Science channel must have seen this discussion pending. This week was the first episode of the re-airing of the Cosmos series. They've digitally remastered it and updated some of the graphics.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
We do have other telescopes up, resistance, that looks at the near space (our galaxy and the borders thereof). There is use in all these telescopes, both for deep space and near space.

The really weird thing is trying to comprehend that what these far-space telescopes are seeing (and as blackhole pointed out it's not always visible light images they 'see'), isn't even there anymore.

That's the part that creeps me out.
But they do "see" the images they bring back to us. And I personally greatly enjoy them.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   
spamandham,
Thanks for the
on the Science channel. The Cosmos docus always left me feeling rather "small".

ValHall,
Hubble may not be the best for taking pics of the moon (i.e. close objects) but it sure seems to excel at taking these types of pics.
NSSDC Photo Gallery Nebulae
sample pic:Close-up of the "Southern Crab Nebula" (He2-104).


Truly amazing!



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Kind of sounds like all the theories concerning the formation of galaxies is going to have to be re-thought. Unless all of the stars in that galaxy are pretty much the same age, which doesn't seem possible, or the Big Bang model is wrong and the age of the Universe is greater than we currently believe, I simply can't comprehend how that many stars could form so quickly, much less congregate into a galaxy approximately 8 times the size of our own and do it all in around 800 million years.

At that time period, just about everything was supposed to be made up of hydrogen.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Astronomer68]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join