New galaxy 'most distant' yet discovered.

[Daz Type-R]

An international team of astronomers has detected the most distant galaxy yet.

The galaxy is about 30 billion light-years away and is helping scientists shed light on the period that immediately followed the Big Bang.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24637890

[dawson]

Blimey.

How can it be 30 billion light years away if the big bang was only 13.8 billion light years away? 13.8 x 2 = 27.6; plus the 0.6 billion lights years away it was initially from the centre of the big bang and the same distance we were presumably; 2 x 0.6 = 1.2 + 27.6 = 28.8 billion light years.... Why is the light taking an extra 1.2 billion light years to reach us?

I've never understood this stuff.

James

[Perkil8r]

This situation is a very confusing one to understand. In essence there is a problem with the figures as James rightly points out. We are calculating it's distance from us. We "know" the Universe is 13.8 Bn years old. We are observing this new galaxy from a point in time approx 0.6 Bn Years after the big bang. Assuming the Galaxy is exactly opposite us from the centre of our understood universe the very furthest we can "observe" it away from us is 13.8 + 0.6 Bn LY away yes? No, that is impossible.

 

See this has got difficult to understand already hasn't it!?

 

Start with the simplest model of a universe we can comprehend, a flat disc like a dinner plate. The big bang would in theory have happened in the very middle of the plate and all things created by it have now scattered from the centre at a maximum speed = to a smidgin under the speed of light yes? So, if we know that we are a maximum of 13.8 Bn LY's away from the middle of the plate (if the universe is 13.8 Bn years old we can't possibly have traveled further). We are told this galaxy is being observed at least 0.6 Bn years after the big bang. If the furthest away we can be from the middle of the plate is 13.8 and the furthest away the new galaxy can be from the middle (as we see it now) is 0.6 on the opposite side of the middle that makes it 14.4 Bn Ly maximum distance away from us at the point at which we are observing it. This is impossible since if the universe is only 13.8 Bn years old, the furthest object we can possibly observe can only be 13.8 Bn Ly away. So maybe the new galaxy is on our side of the universe? If so, how can it be getting further away from us at a speed great enough to be now at 30 Bn Ly away?

 

Add to this the fact that we can see the universe all the way around us to a maximum theoretical distance of 13.8 Bn Ly we aren't the furthest away point from the big bang.

 

In short, I think somebody somewhere has made a miscalculation.

[+Ibbo]

The current estimate of the Universe's age is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old.^[9] The Universe has not been the same at all times in its history; for example, the relative populations of quasars and galaxies have changed and space itself appears to have expanded. This expansion accounts for how Earth-bound scientists can observe the light from a galaxy 30 billion light years away, even if that light has traveled for only 13 billion years; the very space between them has expanded. This expansion is consistent with the observation that the light from distant galaxies has been redshifted; the photons emitted have been stretched to longer wavelengths and lower frequency during their journey. The rate of this spatial expansion is accelerating, based on studies of Type Ia supernovae and corroborated by other data.

 

An earlier interpretation of astronomical observations indicated that the age of the Universe was 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years,^[23] and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years or 8.80×10²⁶ meters.^[24] According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the Universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite

 

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/universe-size/

 

or wiki

 

 

 

nicked from the internet

Edited October 28, 2013 by Ibbo

[Perkil8r]

I hear what you're saying Steve, I too have read that, but we have yet to discover anything that can travel faster than the speed of light. To my mind, unless we have that wrong, the Universe cannot expand faster than light speed? Things can travel apart relative to eachother faster though as we could be going in one direction at just under light speed, whilst something else could be going the opposite direction at the same speed, the combined difference would then be just under twice the speed of light. Now in theory we would see it move away from us at the speed left over from the "little bit less" the sum total being as though we were barely moving apart at all, or would we see it simply vanish? since the light wouldn't be able to reach us at all?

[dawson]

This is nearly as confusing to me as cone error, lol!

James

[+Ibbo]

or here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NU2t5zlxQQ

[+Ibbo]

or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NU2t5zlxQQ

[Allan the Plumber]

that helps

been puzzling about this too

 

at least I know now I'm the centre of my universe

[xanthic]

It's a guess that it's that far though. The light is red shifted so hence by current popular theory must be from an object moving rapidly away. Though the presence of heavy elements in the galaxy (noted in the report) would suggest that it is 2nd or 3rd generation star stuff, so not as old or maybe even as far as they think... a lot of this is stuff guesswork and hypothesis.