Hubble has spotted an ancient galaxy that shouldn’t exist - Polidicks

[IMG]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17tatwtoiu44djpg/xlarge.jpg[/IMG] [quote=io9] This galaxy is so large, so fully-formed, astronomers say it shouldn't exist at all. It's called a "grand-design" spiral galaxy, and unlike most galaxies of its kind, this one is old. Like, really, [I]really[/I] old. According to a new study conducted by researchers using NASA's Hubble Telescope, it dates back roughly 10.7-billion years — and that makes it the most ancient spiral galaxy we've ever discovered. "The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks," said UCLA astrophysicist Alice Shapley in a press release. "Our first thought was, why is this one so different, and so beautiful?" Shapley is co-author of the paper describing the discovery, which is [URL="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7407/full/nature11256.html"]published in the latest issue of [I]Nature[/I][/URL]. She and her colleagues had been using Hubble to investigate some of our Universe's most distant cosmic entities, but the discovery of BX442 — which is what they've dubbed the newfound galaxy — came as a huge surprise. "The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," said University of Toronto's David Law, lead author of the study. "Current wisdom holds that such ‘grand-design' spiral galaxies simply didn't exist at such an early time in the history of the universe." The hallmark of a grand design galaxy is its well-formed spiral arms, but getting into this conformation takes time. When astronomers look at most galaxies as they appeared billions and billions of years ago, they look clumpy and irregular. A 10.7-billion-year-old entity, BX442 came into existence a mere 3-billion years after the Big Bang. That's not a lot of time on a cosmic time scale, and yet BX442 looks surprisingly put together. So much so, in fact, that astronomers didn't believe it at first, chalking their unusual observation up to the accidental alignment of two separate galaxies. But further investigations, conducted at the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, revealed BX442 to be the real thing. So how does a galaxy that shouldn't exist come to be? The researchers think the answer may have something to do with a companion dwarf galaxy looming near BX442 (in the image up top, it's the separate circular cluster in the upper right). Simulations conducted by University of Arizona researcher Charlotte Christenson indicate that gravitation interactions between the two, which she says appear to be in the process of colliding, may have helped BX442 take shape. [URL="http://io9.com/5923569/stephen-hawking-on-the-higgs-discovery-it-seems-i-have-just-lost-100-dollars"]The reason Stephen Hawking bet against the Higgs Boson[/URL] is the same reason BX442 is the best kind of discovery; not only does this galaxy set a new benchmark by way of its cosmic seniority, it's also super weird — weirder than what anyone thought was possible. In science, these are the finds that help us rework our understanding of nature, the discoveries that force us to step back from what we thought we knew, re-assess our preconceived notions, and bring forth a newer, more fully formed view of our Universe. [/quote] [URL="http://io9.com/5927315/hubble-has-spotted-an-ancient-galaxy-that-shouldnt-exist"]Source[/URL] Interesting?

It's full of space treasure.

Aliens. (where's that stupid picture?)

Is that image an actual image of the galaxy or just an artist's representation? Because all the other pictures I see of super duper old galaxies are incredibly low res and extremely hard to make out in an image. [b]Edit:[/b] Oh wait, it's an artist's representation. [url]http://www.space.com/16641-oldest-spiral-galaxy-hubble-telescope.html[/url] Still, this is really badass I fucking love space.

So this is making us rewrite what we thought was impossible (universally speaking that is) Science is neat.

clearly it is a god galaxy science you don wrong again

I probably misunderstood the article, but if spirals is the natural "end evolution" of a galaxy, why is it uncommon for older galaxies to be so? Shouldn't then older galaxies all be spiral and newer ones messed up?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37610251]I probably misunderstood the article, but if spirals is the natural "end evolution" of a galaxy, why is it uncommon for older galaxies to be so? Shouldn't then older galaxies all be spiral and newer ones messed up?[/QUOTE] [I]When astronomers look at most galaxies as they appeared billions and billions of years ago, they look clumpy and irregular.[/I] So no I think the confusion is that, the image of the galaxy is 10.5b years old. Meaning it's a picture of a [I]young[/I] galaxy. Too young to be spiral as we originally thought.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37610238]clearly it is a god galaxy science you don wrong again[/QUOTE] [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wDJKL3GC4jk/TZMydSaRk_I/AAAAAAAAIkc/ZSDtFccUotQ/s1600/Godfellas.jpg[/img]

I wonder what lives there if it still exists. Right now I'm picturing galactic empires and the like.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;37610251]I probably misunderstood the article, but if spirals is the natural "end evolution" of a galaxy, why is it uncommon for older galaxies to be so? Shouldn't then older galaxies all be spiral and newer ones messed up?[/QUOTE] We're getting 10.7 billion year old light. It means so shortly after the big bang it ended up so well formed. We're looking at it how it appeared 10.7 billion years ago.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;37610304]I wonder what lives there if it still exists. Right now I'm picturing galactic empires and the like.[/QUOTE] Its probably already dead, and by dead I mean it turned into a few smaller galaxies, it might even be just gas now.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37610277][I]When astronomers look at most galaxies as they appeared billions and billions of years ago, they look clumpy and irregular.[/I] So no I think the confusion is that, the image of the galaxy is 10.5b years old. Meaning it's a picture of a [I]young[/I] galaxy. Too young to be spiral as we originally thought.[/QUOTE] this, plus galaxies don't really "evolve" singularly i.e. they don't usually start elliptical and then become spiral as an end to their life cycle or whatever, that doesn't happen

[QUOTE=mastermaul;37610321]We're getting 10.7 billion year old light. It means so shortly after the big bang it ended up so well formed. We're looking at it how it appeared 10.7 billion years ago.[/QUOTE] That is depressing.

At events like these, I'm happy I'm talking Sciences.

Spiral galaxy? Wait I've seen this anime

What if it's exactly the same galaxy as ours?

Whatever civilizations were developing or had developed, had ever entered the galactic stage of life, are long but gone now.

[QUOTE=mastermaul;37610321]We're getting 10.7 billion year old light. It means so shortly after the big bang it ended up so well formed. We're looking at it how it appeared 10.7 billion years ago.[/QUOTE] Why is this being rated disagree, it's completely accurate. Are you guys stupid?

[QUOTE=Doctor Dave;37610822]What if it's exactly the same galaxy as ours?[/QUOTE] Like... we're looking at a mirror?

It's really cool to think that we're watching something occur 10.7 billion years ago in (semi) real-time. basic science of course, but still cool.

[QUOTE=Sobek-;37610876]Like... we're looking at a mirror?[/QUOTE] giant mirrors in space

[QUOTE=mastermaul;37610321]We're getting 10.7 billion year old light. It means so shortly after the big bang it ended up so well formed. We're looking at it how it appeared 10.7 billion years ago.[/QUOTE] Aren't we seeing the light from it that corresponds to how far away it is, not how old it is?

[QUOTE=zzzz;37610868]Why is this being rated disagree, it's completely accurate. Are you guys stupid?[/QUOTE] Basically, I disagreed because an assumption is being made that the established age of BX442 is proportioned to its distance in light years. To be clearer, they could have observed an 8 billion year old galaxy, but due to the time it takes that extragalactic light to hit Earth, have deduced that the galaxy must now be 10.7 billion years old. The article never specified how it was calculated.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;37611304]Aren't we seeing the light from it that corresponds to how far away it is, not how old it is?[/QUOTE] If it's a light year away, it takes 1 year for that light to travel that distance. If something is 10.7 billion light years away, not only is it that far away, but the light we are seeing originated from 10.7 billion years ago. While it is true that a light year is a measure of distance, it can still imply additional meaning with time when given proper context.

But the article never said it was 10.7 billion light years [I]away[/I]. It said that the galaxy was 10.7 billion years old. Perspective was not a stipulation. So if I see a sandwich that's 10.7 billion years away and determine that it must be 10.7 billion years old exactly, I'm taking a pretty shitty bet. Now if I see it and I say, that sandwich is [I]at least[/I] 10.7 billion years old, but it looks kind of moldy-- then we have a completely different outcome.

Correct - the article makes no reference to how long light from the galaxy (and therefore the distance) has taken to get here, only the estimation of age of the galaxy.

[img]http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/grand-design-spiral-bx442_1.jpg[/img] Here is the actual false-color picture of the galaxy.

oh fuck it snip again

-snip- ninja'd