Can We See Our Past? - Milky Way & Hubble Telescope

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Viopia
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of observing the Milky Way at a young age, specifically 0.8 billion years after the Big Bang, using the Hubble telescope. Participants explore concepts related to the age of the Milky Way, the limitations of observational astronomy, and the implications of the universe's expansion on our ability to see distant galaxies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that while the Milky Way is about 13.5 billion years old, the light from its early formation has propagated far into space and is no longer observable.
  • Others propose that the Milky Way could be considered a typical galaxy from the early universe, suggesting that if observed at that time, it would resemble other galaxies seen in Hubble's deep field observations.
  • One participant questions the differences between the Milky Way and other galaxies observed shortly after the Big Bang, suggesting that proximity may play a role in our ability to observe them.
  • There is a discussion about the limitations of the Hubble deep field observations, with some participants arguing that many galaxies from that era remain unseen due to the limited area of the sky observed.
  • The concept of the universe's expansion is raised, with participants noting that this affects how we perceive distances and the age of light reaching us.
  • Some participants express confusion about the implications of being at the center of the universe and the observable universe's size, questioning how this relates to the universe's diameter shortly after the Big Bang.
  • One participant mentions that the speed of light remains constant despite the expansion of space, which sets a limit on the observable universe's size.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the implications of their observations and the nature of the early universe. Multiple competing views remain regarding the visibility of the Milky Way at its young age and the interpretation of observational data from the Hubble telescope.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of observable distances and the implications of the universe's expansion on light travel. There are unresolved questions about the nature of galaxies observed in the early universe and the limitations of current observational technology.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring cosmology, the evolution of galaxies, and the limitations of astronomical observations in understanding the early universe.

  • #61
phyzguy said:
No. You're still thinking of the marbles as moving in a static 3D space. Try thinking instead of static marbles in a space which is expanding. Then every marble sees all of the marbles moving away from it, with marbles that are further away moving away faster. It is really impossible to visualize in 3D, which is why we focus on the mathematics.
In fact the string of marbles along a line from the centre to the edge of the sphere would retain their proportional spacing as you stretched them out. The rate is not less towards the centre. If they were evenly spaced to start with they would remain so.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #62
Just a small final thought before I head off to bed. About the OP's question of whether we can see our past.

In fact that is all we can see. Its simply a question of how old what we see is. From the fact that light does take time to travel from the observed to the observer, however short the distance might be, to the time it takes to process that incoming data to form a perception, it can never be instantaneous. If we were able to look at ourselves in a mirror placed on the moon, which is not entirely unfeasible, we would see ourselves a few seconds ago and the delay would be easily noticeable.
 
  • #63
@Viola. The best way to learn is to put in the effort to do so. What you are doing is called being lazy. You are expecting people to teach you material that took people hundreds, if not more, years to understand in a short interval of time. If you are truly interested in learning. Pick up a mathematics/ introductory physics book, and start learning.

You say you are not formally educated... What is stopping you from becoming acquainted with the field? Hint: the answer to this question is somewhere in my post.
 
  • #64
GraemeSRC said:
In fact the string of marbles along a line from the centre to the edge of the sphere would retain their proportional spacing as you stretched them out. The rate is not less towards the centre. If they were evenly spaced to start with they would remain so.

Yes, they remain evenly spaced. But they are getting further apart. There is no center - I never said there was a center. You should imagine that the string of marbles (or ants) is infinitely long. But each marble will see the others as moving away, and see the marbles that are further away moving away faster.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Viopia said:
Many of these videos are made by respected experts in their fields, like the Nobel Laureate Brian Schmidt" in the YouTube video I mentioned. Why would they want to give false information? It is easy to find out who the authors of these videos are, and if they are reputable scientists. I don't mind a bit of "dumbing down" as line as they are telling me the truth.
Ah, now THERE'S a real problem. You think that because the presenter is a "respected expert" then what he/she says in a pop-science presentation will be real physics. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pop-science is made to sell soap / cars / etc, not to teach anyone actual science. Perfectly respectable scientists will say things in pop-science presentations that would get them hooted out of the room in a real physics discussion, and they know it. "Telling the truth" as you put it often requires much more time and explication that one can possibly fit into short presentations like one hour.

That fact is the bane of our existence here on PF. We are constantly having to correct misconceptions that people like you take away from pop-science presentations. I watched quite literally dozens of such things and read similar books and I found that there are common statements that occur so often that it is quite reasonable to assume that they are correct (even though they are not). When I got her to PF I found out that much of what I "knew" was totally wrong. You are running into the same problem.

My only saving grace was that I really wanted to learn so rather than ask questions at first, based on what I had come to realize were clearly misconceptions, I just read LOTS of posts here, plus some more serious books, and learned enough to make my questions based on a bit more knowledge. I still spend MUCH more time here reading threads than asking questions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn and rbelli1
  • #66
phinds said:
I still spend MUCH more time here reading threads than asking questions.
So do I, but I'm going to ask one now. . .
phinds said:
When I got her to PF. . .
Did you miss the "a" an "e" key ? .
naughty.gif
 
Last edited:
  • #67
OCR said:
Did you miss the "a" an "e" key ? . View attachment 247014
:oldlaugh: Hey, *I'M* the head nitpicker here :oldlaugh:

It was indeed a slip of figner.
 
  • #68
phinds said:
:oldlaugh: Hey, *I'M* the head nitpicker here :oldlaugh:
. :DD . :ok:
. :oldlaugh: . And, I believe you. . . . :oldlaugh:
1563955455758.png


.

 
  • #69
PeroK said:
It's closer. The Sun, for example, is only 8 minutes away. The light from the Sun any older that than is traveling away from us; not towards our telescopes.
absolutely correct ,,,,broadly the light rays which we observe at present is as old as its distance ...now we only can see the past of that light source ( or the subject which is reflecting it ) corresponding to is distance from observer ... it is impossible to see its past ...its like its distance puts limits on the our observation ..
 
  • #70
Viopia said:
Thank you. I must apologise to Jbriggs444. I have a bad habit of arguing with people when I don't understand something.
IS there any other PF member to whom that doean't apply? Don't worry. @jbriggs444 has a thick skin like (most of) the rest of us. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444

Similar threads

High School Are the stars that we see in constellations within the Milky Way galaxy?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Stargazing Hubble Spots Farthest Star Ever Seen
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
High School How did Earth get so far away from other galaxies?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Circumgalactic Black hole imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School NGC 4590, more than 1,400 stars found in various evolutionary stages
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Earth's Hubble velocity and measuring Hubble at large distances
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Galaxy MoM-z14 - furthest observed object
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School Milky Way is "in the top percentile of all the galaxies that exist"
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
9K
High School Distance of Stars / Size of the Universe calculation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
High School Did Astronomers Really Think the Milky Way Was the Only Galaxy in 1900?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K