Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hubble's deepest shot is a puzzle
BBC News ^ | 9/23/04 | Staff

Posted on 09/24/2004 8:17:42 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo

Scientists studying the deepest picture of the Universe, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, have been left with a big poser: where are all the stars? The Ultra Deep Field is a view of one patch of sky built from 800 exposures.

The picture shows faint galaxies whose stars were shining just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

"Our results based on the Ultra Deep Field are very intriguing and quite a puzzle," says Dr Andrew Bunker, of Exeter University, UK, who led a team studying the new data."

"They're certainly not what I expected, nor what most of the theorists in astrophysics expected."

"There is not enough activity to explain the re-ionisation of the Universe," Dr Bunker told the BBC. "Perhaps there was more action in terms of star formation even earlier in the history of the Universe - that's one possibility.

"Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."


(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: galaxies; hubble; puzzle; space; ultradeepfield; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last
Fascinating stuff!
1 posted on 09/24/2004 8:17:44 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: petuniasevan; RadioAstronomer

Celestivs Pingvs.


2 posted on 09/24/2004 8:19:47 AM PDT by martin_fierro ('n'at.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

3 posted on 09/24/2004 8:21:08 AM PDT by evets (God bless president George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Indeed.

"Horatio, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

4 posted on 09/24/2004 8:21:25 AM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Incredible.

That big array in South America is to go on-line soon, right?

That's supposed to outdo Hubble.


5 posted on 09/24/2004 8:23:14 AM PDT by JATO ( Dan Ranter: "We don't need no STINKIN' INTERNAL INVESTIGATION.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JATO

What big array is that? the ESO? There are rea problems with it. OR are you talking about the CalTech project/


6 posted on 09/24/2004 8:26:38 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Alright this big bang theory I have problems with. Its just too simple for the complexity of the universe.


7 posted on 09/24/2004 8:27:11 AM PDT by 50 Cal (Next time you think nobody cares if you exist just don't pay the IRS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

According to the Graphic, NASA was created during the Big Bang. Interesting....


8 posted on 09/24/2004 8:35:26 AM PDT by rudypoot (Kerry sold out the US for political gain before now and he is doing it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
There's an intriguing "upgrade Hubble" slant to the article that rings true to me -- sounds like some grant money is at stake for these Hubble users, and this Big Announcement is a way to keep it in play.

Interesting article, nevertheless.

9 posted on 09/24/2004 8:37:45 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist

I'm not staying up-to-date, obviously. It's the ESO in Peru or elsewhere in the Andes.

To bad it's having problems. I was looking forward to seeing the footprints on the moon.

I know a Chinese engineer who believes Apollo is a hoax, honestly!


10 posted on 09/24/2004 8:42:22 AM PDT by JATO ( Dan Ranter: "We don't need no STINKIN' INTERNAL INVESTIGATION.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 50 Cal

The big bang theory is just creationism for athiests.


11 posted on 09/24/2004 8:44:47 AM PDT by Junior_G
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The picture shows faint galaxies whose stars were shining just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

Ok....

Now can anyone explain to me why this is a problem?

Stars are formed when gravity concentrates any large enough mass until the temperature for nuclear fusion has been reached. After that point, a nuclear reaction will always result, and a star is formed.

The only time limit as to how fast a large mass could be concentrated, would be the speed of light.

With a young Universe, everything was much loser together. I would expect stars to form rapidly.

12 posted on 09/24/2004 8:54:03 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

What God spoke into existence will never be fully grasped by Man. Physics and the universe (along with everyone/thing in it) are what God determined they would be.


13 posted on 09/24/2004 8:57:28 AM PDT by trebb (Ain't God good . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe...."

Guess that shoots the hell out of their time-line.
How old is the universe? Depends on the rate that time was flowing back then.......

14 posted on 09/24/2004 8:57:45 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rudypoot

"According to the Graphic, NASA was created during the Big Bang. Interesting...."

See how hard it is to get rid of those government programs?


15 posted on 09/24/2004 8:59:55 AM PDT by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G
"The big bang theory is just creationism for athiests."

Actually, the "big bang" theory was first promulgated by Jesuit physicist Georges LeMaitre--so one can hardly blame it on athiests.

16 posted on 09/24/2004 9:03:38 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

"Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."

Read Genesis--In the Beginning GOD--

God is a just a weebit higher than the understanding of the wisest physics scientists.


17 posted on 09/24/2004 9:04:15 AM PDT by georgiegirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann had actually came to the same conclusion a few years earlier.
The term "Big Bang" was coined by Hoyle, who was mocking the theory in an attempt to boost his steady state model, rest it's soul.


18 posted on 09/24/2004 9:08:54 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
How old is the universe? Depends on the rate that time was flowing back then.......

Cute!

To measure something, it must be compared to a standard. If you are not willing to consider the flow of time as a standard, then was is your suggested alternative?

The wavelength or frequency of the light emitted my a Hydrogen atom can be measured by time or by length. What standard would you consider the most appropriate?

Please be consistent with your answer and fully understand the implications that it may have.

19 posted on 09/24/2004 9:08:57 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CzarNicky
See how hard it is to get rid of those government programs?

LOL

"Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

- Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), U.S. Republican politician, president. "A Time for Choosing," television address, 27 Oct. 1964

20 posted on 09/24/2004 9:35:32 AM PDT by rudypoot (Kerry sold out the US for political gain before now and he is doing it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
I had used Dr Bunkers' own words:
....."Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."

I am not parsing words here, merely commenting on HIS own words as HE was entertaining the possibility of no baseline standards for the laws of physics.
Sooo, what is your problem with my comment?

21 posted on 09/24/2004 9:40:28 AM PDT by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rudypoot
"According to the Graphic, NASA was created during the Big Bang. Interesting...."

You read it from bottom up. First there was NASA, then the big bang.

22 posted on 09/24/2004 9:43:59 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann had actually came to the same conclusion a few years earlier."

Yes, the Soviets invented everything first (or so they claimed before they went extinct).

23 posted on 09/24/2004 9:44:34 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"Perhaps there was more action in terms of star formation even earlier in the history of the Universe - that's one possibility." "Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."

Perhaps physics was very different 7000 years ago.

24 posted on 09/24/2004 9:45:54 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axiom Nine

ping


25 posted on 09/24/2004 9:47:59 AM PDT by pax_et_bonum (Sometimes these brain cells have a mind of their own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro; RadioAstronomer

Given the current rate of expansion and the speed of light, what's the limit on the oldest light one could see in any particular direction?


26 posted on 09/24/2004 9:51:02 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G; All
The big bang theory is just creationism for athiests.

Piffle!

I haven't seen this much codswallop on a single thread in quite a while.

27 posted on 09/24/2004 9:52:02 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Oh no!!!

We're living in side Michael Moores's stomach!

LET ME OUT!


28 posted on 09/24/2004 9:53:16 AM PDT by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; martin_fierro
Given the current rate of expansion and the speed of light, what's the limit on the oldest light one could see in any particular direction?

Hi!

I am in the lab at the moment, so I will have to answer this when I get home.

29 posted on 09/24/2004 9:57:49 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
If you are not willing to consider the flow of time as a standard, then was is your suggested alternative?

But the flow of time isn't really a standard; it varies from place-to-place and object-to-object depending on the local gravity, mass, and velocity.

Mind you, that by itself doesn't exactly get the universe down to 6000 years, but it still begs the question: When scientists say the universe is 13+ billion years old, which part of it are they referring to?

30 posted on 09/24/2004 9:58:17 AM PDT by Buggman (Your failure to be informed does not make me a kook.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Junior_G
"The big bang theory is just creationism for athiests."

Profound statement, JG!

31 posted on 09/24/2004 10:00:32 AM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Weird graphic.
The "big bang" took place at a single point, did it not?
The graphic has the "big bang" way, way out there past the edge of the sphere. But it should obviously, by definition, be at the center of the sphere.


32 posted on 09/24/2004 10:01:39 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
I asked you a rather simple question:

What do you consider as a valid standard for measurement?

Distance or time? Your choice.

However, if you have another standard that is better than distance or time, I am more than willing to consider it.

33 posted on 09/24/2004 10:01:50 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

True, but never mind.


34 posted on 09/24/2004 10:03:05 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
The graphic has the "big bang" way, way out there past the edge of the sphere. But it should obviously, by definition, be at the center of the sphere.

Actually, the "center" of the universe (point of origin of the big bang) is everywhere.

35 posted on 09/24/2004 10:04:27 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver
Profound statement, JG!

Nope. It is pure drivel.

36 posted on 09/24/2004 10:05:50 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

The part of that graphic that is really interesting to me is on the outer rim where Pure Energy coaleses and condenses into Matter... fascinating... it kind of goes along with my theory that Matter (or particles) is simply Standing Wave Nodes (wave action) rippling upon an aetheric background...


37 posted on 09/24/2004 10:06:02 AM PDT by WashStateGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: RadioAstronomer

The problem with astrophysics and particle physics generally is that a very select group of people expound some very arcane hypothesis using paradigms only they can understand and then they can't prove them to even their own peer groups ,so they postulate a new theory and so on and so forth ad nausean. And there is no way a congressional appropiator or their staff can really make a proper evaluation when faced with a request for a larger particle accelerator or other huge megabuck project.


39 posted on 09/24/2004 10:08:30 AM PDT by Calusa (One Nation Gone Under.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

So the "big bang" not only exploded mass, but time and space as well?


40 posted on 09/24/2004 10:10:34 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Piffle!

I haven't seen this much codswallop on a single thread in quite a while.

With the refinement of specialization, we have lost our intuitiveness.

41 posted on 09/24/2004 10:15:16 AM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Calusa
Now I must admit that even I have a tiny little problem.

If, for instance, I was in a tiny space-ship located on the surface of the first Atomic bomb. That bomb exploded in 1945 and my little ship has been traveling along with it's light and shock-wave for the last 59 years.

I do not care how you manipulate the math, I should always be able to view the origin of the explosion from my space ship's window as a single point.

I have never been able to understand why the origin of the visible Universe can be viewed from every direction, unless I am at it's center.

Is Earth the center of the Universe?

42 posted on 09/24/2004 10:17:39 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Inflationary theory. More codswallop, but the prevailing theory right now.

Wake me up when they figure out that there was no "big bang" and that the universe has built in recycling mechanisms and that their observed "limits" are like a man who has lived his entire life in a fog bank. He can only see so far and thinks that that is as far as anything exists.

And for the creationists... not even gonna go there.

43 posted on 09/24/2004 10:18:40 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Albanian: O Zot! Kam sakice ne koke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo

Here's a doozie for you...ponder this...

What if God used a big bang to create the universe!

:)

What if God spoke, and BANG! There was a universe!


44 posted on 09/24/2004 10:19:09 AM PDT by melbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
The graphic has the "big bang" way, way out there past the edge of the sphere.

Think not in terms of physical distance, but in terms of time.
We can't look back in time at nearby objects - the light we see comes from a short time ago.
Faraway objects (in any direction) are farther back in time, due to the finite speed of light.
The farthest you could possibly see would also be the oldest.

45 posted on 09/24/2004 10:23:48 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
I have never been able to understand why the origin of the visible Universe can be viewed from every direction, unless I am at it's center.

Is Earth the center of the Universe?


What if living in the universe was similar to living on the surface of a balloon? Our universe got bigger as the balloon expands. Everything looks like it is exapanding away from us, but we are not in the center of it.
46 posted on 09/24/2004 10:24:36 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: melbell
I guess anything is possible. Considering that some theory's allege that the entire universe took up an area that could have been put on the head of pin, prior to the big bang.
47 posted on 09/24/2004 10:25:20 AM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
can anyone explain to me why this is a problem?

No. But the model needs to be modified every time there is a new observation. I am wondering if there is a kind of delayed-choice phenomenon happening as there is in quantum mechanics.

48 posted on 09/24/2004 10:25:51 AM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
The Word that was with God spoke, and universe came into existance, Adam create as man (not child), stars millions of light years away already visible to his eye during the cool of the night. Yes, Creation is just that, a creation, instant, beautiful, without understanding. Science can only reveal the Creator, nothing more ... Glory be to God in the Highest...

Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
49 posted on 09/24/2004 10:26:34 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Ok, what if I was living on the surface of a balloon?

Would it not be like living on the Earth? There is a horizon where the surface of the Earth curves away. There is also an up and down (sky and ground) that is very different from anything else.

Even living on the surface of a balloon, I would never be able to view the sky as equal in every direction.

50 posted on 09/24/2004 10:30:40 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-186 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson