The Farthest Object in the Universe

The Farthest Object in the Universe

Another source:
Farthest Known Galaxy in the Universe Discovered

Well here's some pretty cool news. The farthest object from us has been discovered. The galaxy in question appeared only 570 million years after the Big Bang. Keep in mind, the previous record holder was in at 2.2 billion years after the big bang.

From the first source:

Scientists at Caltech have confirmed the distance of the furthest galaxy known in the Universe as of today. The light from this very early celestial comes just 570 million years after the Big Bang. Keep in mind that the Universe is 13.82 billion years old. The previou record holder formed much later: 2.2 billion years after the Big Bang.

From the second source:

Astronomers spotted the object using NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes, with the aid of a naturally occurring cosmic zoom lens as well. This lens is a huge cluster of galaxies whose collective gravity warps space-time, producing what's called a gravitational lens. As the distant galaxy's light traveled through this lens on its way to Earth, it was magnified.

"This cluster does what no manmade telescope can do," Marc Postman of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md., said in a statement unveiling the discovery today (Nov. 15). "Without the magnification, it would require a Herculean effort to observe this galaxy." Postman leads the Cluster Lensing And Supernova Survey with Hubble (CLASH), which performed the study.

The distant galaxy is just a tiny blob, and is much smaller than our own Milky Way, researchers said. The object is very young, and it also dates from an epoch when the universe itself was still a baby, just 420 million years old, or 3 percent of its present age. [The Universe: Big Bang to Now in 10 Easy Steps]

Here's what the image looked like from the telescope:


This is some pretty cool news. This galaxy's light has been traveling to our planet since pretty much when the time and space first started.

The mini galaxy is less than 600 light-years wide; for comparison, the Milky Way is 150,000 light-years across. Astronomers think MACS0647-JD may eventually combine with other small galaxies to create a larger whole.

"This object may be one of many building blocks of a galaxy," said the Space Telescope Science Institute's Dan Coe, who led the study of this particular galaxy. "Over the next 13 billion years, it may have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of merging events with other galaxies and galaxy fragments."

It always amazes me how we can see so far back to the big bang. The universe is only 13.82 billion years old? I didn't know that either.
The distant Galaxy is a tiny blob. Says it all really.

a reply to: rhynouk

13.82 billion, not million.

Thanks Krazy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This stuff is just amazing...hell, I'm still amazed that they can even measure the distance of such a small, distant object...especially when the light comes at us through a gravitational lens. Just the way to mathematically account for that lens effect alone boggles my mind.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: rhynouk

13.82 billion, not million.

Thanks, I didn't notice that

a reply to: rhynouk

Just think, when that galaxy was being formed the universe was still technically in its infancy, but at the SAME time it was already older than the length of time humans and our homo ancestors have been on planet earth.

originally posted by: rhynouk
It always amazes me how we can see so far back to the big bang. The universe is only 13.82 billion years old? I didn't know that either.
The distant Galaxy is a tiny blob. Says it all really.

No one has ever observed the big bang happen so I don't buy it. But in either case this is still a cool discovery.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Regardless of what we have or haven't witnessed, we can still trace the age of space/time back to when space/time first started, which is called the Big Bang (note I didn't say that it was the beginning of the universe).

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: rhynouk
It always amazes me how we can see so far back to the big bang. The universe is only 13.82 billion years old? I didn't know that either.
The distant Galaxy is a tiny blob. Says it all really.

No one has ever observed the big bang happen so I don't buy it. But in either case this is still a cool discovery.

I know what you mean. I question this all the time. There must be a science to it somewhere. Either way it's an interesting article & discovery.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Regardless of what we have or haven't witnessed, we can still trace the age of space/time back to when space/time first started, which is called the Big Bang (note I didn't say that it was the beginning of the universe).

But if it has never been observed how can you say for sure that is when space and time started? It just doesn't make sense, I applaud science for giving us pictures of new things to look at, but they need to stop with the "this is when it started" crap because they just don't know.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Regardless of what we have or haven't witnessed, we can still trace the age of space/time back to when space/time first started, which is called the Big Bang (note I didn't say that it was the beginning of the universe).

But if it has never been observed how can you say for sure that is when space and time started? It just doesn't make sense, I applaud science for giving us pictures of new things to look at, but they need to stop with the "this is when it started" crap because they just don't know.

Science can observe something without humans personally witnessing it. When was the last time you saw an x-ray? Do you believe they don't exist because you haven't seen one?

You should read up on the cosmic microwave background and the cosmic neutrino background. They are what help us trace back to the beginning of time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Very interesting, it's big jump.. astronomical... I'm no physicist but I've often wondered, if the wavelength of light stretches with time, flattening out, until to us it's completely flat, would we be able to see past that 'Age of Light' constant - the time it takes to completely flatten light of all visible frequencies...... The universe could be much older...

I also think about a 'Gravitational Universal Shell' pulling matter towards it (ever faster)... This could be from all the surrounding bubble-verses....... But the shell could also form internally (closed universe), even with a big bang...... Dark Matter has expanded, whilst flattening (by objects being attracted to each other, but still riding the outward expanding energy/gravitation wave of the big bang) - and has piled up and stretched into a 'shell' that now attracts matter WITHOUT THE NEED OF BIG BANG ENERGY....... or could this happen in the future if we are not past that theoretical point yet.... if you get me!??

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Could there be an 'Age of Light' at which point all light is so flat (through stretching or some other decay) that it's invisible..... if it's stretched more than or equal to the length of the universe, for instance - or just decays (not sure what to tie that to in physics)... I'm no physicist....

a reply to: PrivateSi

I don't think so. What makes light "visible" is a certain frequency spectrum of light, but light isn't JUST composed of that frequency. In fact, MOST of light isn't visible to us.

Nice. This wasn't from a Hubble Deep Field, but I'd love to see more Deep Fields, lots of them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Poor use of the word 'visible' in that respect - not obviously! I meant the point at which all of the em-spectrum is not visible to any instruments (that could ever be made) - one imaginable scenario is if all frequencies of 'older than observable light' are flat - and we know light stretches with time......

If the universe was 'going backwards', imploding ever faster it would appear to be expanding, as things nearer a central point travel towards it ever faster (it's a growing black hole)... We do not see a 'central point' to our universe so, for it to be a closed universe it would either need an Age of Light that prevents us seeing this central point or needs a 'Universal Shell' - if this is gravitational too it would appear to show an expanding universe...

But the universe could be expanding infinitely - as is thought to be the case...... BUT IT'S SO BLEAK, frizzling out to no life, ever again.... So then, where do multiverses fit in? More unobserved/non-hinted at 'dimensions'...?

A 'Gravitational Universal Shell' at some point would seem to me to naturally pull-itself into an implosion when the VACUUM ENERGY becomes CRITICAL (because all matter is now in the shell, space is empty, gravity goes straight to the shell on the opposite side, imploding then BIG BANGING AGAIN)............. I am probably talking much rubbish here, from a scientific perspective..... It's all Greek to me sometimes....

originally posted by: PrivateSi
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Poor use of the word 'visible' in that respect - not obviously! I meant the point at which all of the em-spectrum is not visible to any instruments (that could ever be made) - one imaginable scenario is if all frequencies of 'older than observable light' are flat - and we know light stretches with time......

The cosmic microwave background is visible to man-made instruments but we only stumbled on it about half a century ago. The amount of wavelength stretching is correlated to the letter "z" which astronomers use to represent red-shift.

The z-value of redshift for the galaxy mentioned in the OP is 10.7
The z-value of redshift for the big bang leftovers (CMB) is about 1000

a reply to: PrivateSi

Could there be an 'Age of Light' at which point all light is so flat... that it's invisible?

Yes, there could — sort of.

Although the universe is ~13.8bn years old, expansion of the metric means it is considerably more than 13.8bn light-years wide. Most of the universe is probably invisible to us since it is receding from us faster than the speed of light. But there is another component of the universe, a little nearer to us than that, whose speed of recession is less than that of light, but which is invisible to us anyway. This is because the light from it is redshifted down so far it cannot even be picked up by radio telescopes.

Redshift means an increase in the wavelength of the shifted light. The longer the wavelength for a given amplitude, the Cosmological redshift, the smaller the maximum slope of the wave at any point — i.e., the 'flatter' the wave. The wave has been 'stretched' out so far it's undetectable.

The reason this does not happen with the cosmic microwave background, which is even older than the portions of the universe to which I allude, is because the CMB is relic radiation from the Big Bang itself, and therefore pervades all space.

a reply to: Astyanax

Cheers. Cleared up a few things about various red shifts... I just can't get my head round the fact if something imploded from a point we should see that point as we look 'back in time' - but not in ALL/many DIRECTIONS, as they do (so I understand) - surely?... boggles my mind.. Implies to me a natural 'observation barrier' in time and we are only looking at a small slice of total time... It's the speed of light vs the speed of expansion, in many ways, I suppose.. I'll just think of us in a toroidal universe, long dead empty space in the middle, petering out of existence as we expand indefinitely!....