• Hubble Reaches Billions Of Years Into The Past
    141 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18933186]Wait, hold on... this doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm missing something. The big bang supposedly (or at least in all the image concepts you see) has all the matter coming out from an epicenter of some sort. We shouldn't be able to see stuff from that long ago because wouldn't it have taken it roughly 13.5 billion years for our galaxies' matter to get 13.5 billion years away from the matter of the other ancient that the hubble looked at? So either the universe would have to be older than 14 billion years, or the big bang would have had to spawn matter all over the universe at the same time, because matter wouldn't have been able to get that far away from the ancient galaxies since matter can only travel at the speed of light (maximum) I mean, we should be able to see stuff in the past, but the specific number 13.5 billion years ago doesn't make sense. I'm obviously missing something, but I'm not sure what.[/QUOTE] :psyduck:
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18933186]Wait, hold on... this doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm missing something. The big bang supposedly (or at least in all the image concepts you see) has all the matter coming out from an epicenter of some sort. We shouldn't be able to see stuff from that long ago because wouldn't it have taken it roughly 13.5 billion years for our galaxies' matter to get 13.5 billion years away from the matter of the other ancient that the hubble looked at? So either the universe would have to be older than 14 billion years, or the big bang would have had to spawn matter all over the universe at the same time, because matter wouldn't have been able to get that far away from the ancient galaxies since matter can only travel at the speed of light (maximum) I mean, we should be able to see stuff in the past, but the specific number 13.5 billion years ago doesn't make sense. I'm obviously missing something, but I'm not sure what.[/QUOTE] I wish thinking the same thing, but they did say that the light is very faint. Maybe that has something to do with it? Even still they have yet to see exactly 14 billion years, for all we know those 13.5 billion years is the oldest we'll ever see.
If we were looking at matter from 13.5 billion years ago, then we would already have to have been 13.5 billion years away from them, If we were moving away from that material in the opposite direction, then we would have already seen well over a billion years of lightwaves from those galaxies that the hubble took pictures of as we were moving off in that direction. these images (unless our galaxy has ALWAYS been where it is now) then we'd be seeing a lot closer into the past than has been said.. I think it's impossible for our galaxy to move [B]13.5 billion lightyears away[/B] from the center of the universe in .5 billion years. These pictures must be a lot newer than 13.5 billion lightyears away. In essence, we should only be able to see light that's a minimum of maybe 1-2 billion years away otherwise it would simply be far out of our view, what with matter constantly spreading out over the universe. Like, a field of view, but with time o.0 oh, wait.. I'm confused now. [editline]06:43AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jurikuer;18933415]I wish thinking the same thing, but they did say that the light is very faint. Maybe that has something to do with it? Even still they have yet to see exactly 14 billion years, for all we know those 13.5 billion years is the oldest we'll ever see.[/QUOTE] I'd assume the light was faint because it would gradually get blocked by dust and crap that's in space. it's like trying to a see a distant mountain in the fog. If you're looking 14.5 billion years away, there's bound to be a lot of crap that got in the way of the light in that time period.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18933435]If we were looking at matter from 13.5 billion years ago, then we would already have to have been 13.5 billion years away from them, If we were moving away from that material in the opposite direction, then we would have already seen well over a billion years of lightwaves from those galaxies that the hubble took pictures of as we were moving off in that direction. these images (unless our galaxy has ALWAYS been where it is now) then we'd be seeing a lot closer into the past than has been said.. I think it's impossible for our galaxy to move [B]13.5 billion lightyears away[/B] from the center of the universe in .5 billion years. These pictures must be a lot newer than 13.5 billion lightyears away. In essence, we should only be able to see light that's a minimum of maybe 1-2 billion years away otherwise it would simply be far out of our view, what with matter constantly spreading out over the universe. oh, wait.. I'm confused now. [editline]06:43AM[/editline] I'd assume the light was faint because it would gradually get blocked by dust and crap that's in space. it's like trying to a see a distant mountain in the fog. If you're looking 14.5 billion years away, there's bound to be a lot of crap that got in the way of the light in that time period.[/QUOTE] So what you're trying to say is that there's no way for us to look at galaxies from 13 billion years ago because there's no way for our galaxy to move that far in .5 billion years? Wait.. :psyduck:
Hold on, Wikipedia has something on it. What I was describing is formally called a time Horizon. [quote]Horizon problem Main article: Horizon problem The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. In a Universe of finite age, this sets a limit—the particle horizon—on the separation of any two regions of space that are in causal contact.[48] The observed isotropy of the CMB is problematic in this regard: if the Universe had been dominated by radiation or matter at all times up to the epoch of last scattering, the particle horizon at that time would correspond to about 2 degrees on the sky. There would then be no mechanism to cause wider regions to have the same temperature. A resolution to this apparent inconsistency is offered by inflationary theory in which a homogeneous and isotropic scalar energy field dominates the Universe at some very early period (before baryogenesis). During inflation, the Universe undergoes exponential expansion, and the particle horizon expands much more rapidly than previously assumed, so that regions presently on opposite sides of the observable Universe are well inside each other's particle horizon. The observed isotropy of the CMB then follows from the fact that this larger region was in causal contact before the beginning of inflation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle predicts that during the inflationary phase there would be quantum thermal fluctuations, which would be magnified to cosmic scale. These fluctuations serve as the seeds of all current structure in the Universe. Inflation predicts that the primordial fluctuations are nearly scale invariant and Gaussian, which has been accurately confirmed by measurements of the CMB. If inflation occurred, exponential expansion would push large regions of space well beyond our observable horizon.[/quote] [editline]06:49AM[/editline] [QUOTE=DarkCybrid;18933479]So what you're trying to say is that there's no way for us to look at galaxies from 13 billion years ago because there's no way for our galaxy to move that far in .5 billion years? Wait.. :psyduck:[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. The only way we could see that stuff at the center of the universe from 13.5 billion years ago, we would need to be at least 13.5 billion lightyears away, but we obviously cannot be that far away or else we'd be seeing something else other than early galaxies.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18933491]Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. The only way we could see that stuff at the center of the universe from 13.5 billion years ago, we would need to be at least 13.5 billion lightyears away, but we obviously cannot be that far away or else we'd be seeing something else other than early galaxies.[/QUOTE] You sir are a brilliant man! :monocle:
Oh, hold on. found out why. It's because time and space itself is expanding outwards exponentially. So, something could potentially have been formed 5 billion years ago [B]in time,[/B] but [B]in physical distance[/B], it could be 20 billion light years away (light years being used simply as a form of distance). I guess the effect of the big bang is still happening :raise: So those pictures are from 13.5 billion years ago, but that point in space is probably much more than 13.5 billion light years away from us in distance at this point because the universe is expanding outwards in all directions. Shit's weird in space :saddowns: In effect, the universe and time itself is expanding much faster than the speed of light.
Well to be fair our galaxy is moving away from the center of the universe where the so called big bang happened and much like explosions here on earth, outter energy escapes extremely fast and eventually slows down while inner energy is more less trapped by the outter energy and is slowed down exponentially. Thus causing some galaxies to form near the center. If you think of the universe as a bunch of atoms (galaxies) and each atom is moving away from the start each other their protons and neutrons orbiting them (spiraling of galaxies) and then inside those atoms are other atoms (solar systems), it may or may not make more sense. But it makes sense in my mind.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;18933672]Well to be fair our galaxy is moving away from the center of the universe where the so called big bang happened and much like explosions here on earth, outter energy escapes extremely fast and eventually slows down while inner energy is more less trapped by the outter energy and is slowed down exponentially. Thus causing some galaxies to form near the center. If you think of the universe as a bunch of atoms and each atom is moving away from the start each other their protons and neutrons orbiting them (spiraling of galaxies) and then inside those atoms are other atoms (solar systems), it may or may not make more sense. But it makes sense in my mind.[/QUOTE] It wasn't galaxies at the center that I was confused about, it was us being 13.5 billion lightyears away from them in 14 billion years time. it made no sense until I realized that the universe itself (I don't mean the contents of the universe) was expanding.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18933711]It wasn't galaxies at the center that I was confused about, it was us being 13.5 billion lightyears away from them in 14 billion years time. it made no sense until I realized that the universe itself (I don't mean the contents of the universe) was expanding.[/QUOTE] Oh well in that case rate me bad reading lol. But yes, universal expansion explains what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=faze;18820668]Man is the coolest thing ever to be in space. Without that, Hubble would not be there.[/QUOTE] I'd say firing a chimpanzee into space was pretty cool. [IMG]http://www.macroevolution.net/images/ham-the-chimp-pub-dom.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=faze;18820753]Man has gone up there to fix, repair, and upgrade this thing. Without man, we wouldn't have seen anything noteworthy.[/QUOTE] Right, THEY ARE BOTH BENEFICIAL. You can't have one without wanting the other.
[QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;18932478]That doesn't make any sense. How is Hubble "magically" going "back in time"? It's seeing original stars, not time-travelling. Also, I'd say something about religion, but considering this is Facepunch, we know how that would end, so I won't bother.[/QUOTE] Religion has no place in science.
How did we get far enough away to witness 13.5 billion year old light when all matter comes from the same place and matter can't move faster than light? [editline]07:53AM[/editline] [IMG]http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq12/the1trueryandaniels/bang.png[/IMG] 1. 500 million years distance; if red was moving at 100 mph, then of course it wouldn't take that long for light to cross the distance, but if they were moving at near light speed, it would take [I]almost[/I] 500 million years for the light to make it from this object to the epicenter. 2. 1 billion years distance; again, if they were traveling at near light speed, it would take almost 1 billion years to reach [I]this point[/I] 3. 13 billion years distance? By the time the light from the red got to the green position in (2), green would have moved away. And if it was traveling at near light speed, it's possible that it could've taken 13 billion years to 'catch up' Well that my idea at least.
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;18937657]How did we get far enough away to witness 13.5 billion year old light when all matter comes from the same place and matter can't move faster than light? [editline]07:53AM[/editline] [IMG]http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq12/the1trueryandaniels/bang.png[/IMG] 1. 500 million years distance; if red was moving at 100 mph, then of course it wouldn't take that long for light to cross the distance, but if they were moving at near light speed, it would take [I]almost[/I] 500 million years for the light to make it from this object to the epicenter. 2. 1 billion years distance; again, if they were traveling at near light speed, it would take almost 1 billion years to reach [I]this point[/I] 3. 13 billion years distance? By the time the light from the red got to the green position in (2), green would have moved away. And if it was traveling at near light speed, it's possible that it could've taken 13 billion years to 'catch up' Well that my idea at least.[/QUOTE] Um.... Light [i]is[/i] matter...
This is fucking awesome, I'm so interested in space. I wish I had the smarts to be some sort of astronomer.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18933186]Wait, hold on... this doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm missing something. The big bang supposedly (or at least in all the image concepts you see) has all the matter coming out from an epicenter of some sort. We shouldn't be able to see stuff from that long ago because wouldn't it have taken it roughly 13.5 billion years for our galaxies' matter to get 13.5 billion years away from the matter of the other ancient that the hubble looked at? So either the universe would have to be older than 14 billion years, or the big bang would have had to spawn matter all over the universe at the same time, because matter wouldn't have been able to get that far away from the ancient galaxies since matter can only travel at the speed of light (maximum) I mean, we should be able to see stuff in the past, but the specific number 13.5 billion years ago doesn't make sense. I'm obviously missing something, but I'm not sure what.[/QUOTE] Fun Face: The Universe is atcually expanding faster than the speed of light. Stick that in your physics and smoke it. It's one bit of physics I just left. My brain hurts just typing it out. Still it's important to remember that the galaxy expansion most people concieve, that the borders of the universe are getting bigger and we a flying off twoard them, is wrong. Rather, we are remaining relatively speaking quite still. All matter is expanding, and thus the space between us increasing.
Time travel is imminent.
How can space be empty. I mean nothing simply cannot be nothing.
[QUOTE=ryandaniels;18937657]How did we get far enough away to witness 13.5 billion year old light when all matter comes from the same place and matter can't move faster than light? [editline]07:53AM[/editline] [IMG]http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq12/the1trueryandaniels/bang.png[/IMG] 1. 500 million years distance; if red was moving at 100 mph, then of course it wouldn't take that long for light to cross the distance, but if they were moving at near light speed, it would take [I]almost[/I] 500 million years for the light to make it from this object to the epicenter. 2. 1 billion years distance; again, if they were traveling at near light speed, it would take almost 1 billion years to reach [I]this point[/I] 3. 13 billion years distance? By the time the light from the red got to the green position in (2), green would have moved away. And if it was traveling at near light speed, it's possible that it could've taken 13 billion years to 'catch up' Well that my idea at least.[/QUOTE] Had a big cooperative mindfuck about that a few posts up. It's resolved.
[QUOTE=winsanity;18954918]How can space be empty. I mean nothing simply cannot be nothing.[/QUOTE] Nothing is nothing. The absence of something. Space has particles and shit in it, but nothing that makes it the empty void that it is.
[QUOTE=lettuce_head;18824163]Here's a thought, if you went out into space far enough that the light from the earth in 1940 had only just reached there, and you had some sort of super telescope, could you look at the earth and see the earth in 1940 and see Hitler, and then you had some sort of super sniper rifle that shot bulets far faster than the speed of light, then you could kill Hitler.[/QUOTE] No because it is just light, what you would see would have already happened it's just an image not reality.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.