Stargazing How deep can Hubble Telescope see?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Herbascious J
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hubble Telescope
AI Thread Summary
The Hubble Telescope can observe galaxies up to about 13 billion years old, primarily due to limitations in its ability to detect heavily redshifted light from ancient galaxies. This limitation arises because the redshift increases significantly as we look further back in time, making older galaxies less visible. The James Webb Telescope, designed for infrared observations, is expected to provide deeper insights and potentially observe galaxies formed shortly after the Big Bang, with a theoretical capability to see objects at redshifts up to z=16. Current understanding suggests that it took around 500 million years for the first galaxies to form, with Hubble having observed proto-galaxies from about 700 million years after the universe's creation. Overall, the advancements in telescope technology promise to enhance our understanding of the universe's early structures.
Herbascious J
Messages
165
Reaction score
7
How deep can Hubble Telescope see??

-I understand that the Hubble telescope can only resolve galaxies at about 13 billion years old, using gravitational lensing. I am curious, is this because the telescope does not have the power to see farther? Or is this because there are no farther galaxies to see because this is too close to the Big Bang? Or, is it perhaps because the redishifts become so great that galaxies disapear at this point? I ask because I am curious to know if the James Webb telescope will actually provide new insight and perhaps even observations of older galaxies. Thanks!

P.S. - About my last point. At what age does the redshift become so shifted that galaxies no longer are observable (even if this boundary is older than the universe in theory, I am curious to know what it would be)
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I'll have to go look for the piece, but recently I read was that the oldest galaxy we have seen is 30 billion light years away. It is 13.1 billion years old, about 700 million years after the creation of the universe. It was seen by Hubble.

Link http://www.kbtx.com/home/editorspick/Texas-AM-Researchers-Discover-New-Galaxy-30-Billion-Light-Years-Away-229007511.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi, and thanks for the quick reply and link...! Do you know if the Hubble ST could resolve older galaxies IF the universe were old enough to support them? If the Universe was 16 billion years old, could Hubble resolve 15 billion year old galaxies? I guess I'm trying to asses how powerful HST really is. Thanks!
 
It is generally believed it took about 500 million years for the first galaxies to form. As noted, we have observed a galaxy that formed when the universe was only 700 million years old. In fact, it is not yet even a full fledged galaxy, but, a proto galaxy. It is visible because it is undergoing a period of star burst activity. The trouble with Hubble is it does not see so well in the far end of the red spectrum and all of these ancient galaxies at the perimeter of the observable universe are heavily redshifted. The James Webb telescope is specially designed for viewing in the red end of the spectrum, and is larger than the Hubble. It is theoretically capable of seeing objects out to about z=16.
 
Ah, I see. Thanks for the great explanation... This is very exciting, it seems the Webb telescope should render some really amazing stuff! Thanks again.
-J
 

Thread 'Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?'

TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
View full post »
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Can We See Our Past? - Milky Way & Hubble Telescope
2
Replies
69
Views
12K
A Did scientists just find that the Universe has finite angular momentum?
Replies
12
Views
3K
I Phase Contrast Telescope - Part II
Replies
25
Views
2K
B Nervous about James Webb Space Telescope?
Replies
23
Views
3K
Stargazing What was the reaction to the Hubble telescope's pictures?
Replies
23
Views
6K
Stargazing How Does Hubble's Field of View Compare to Amateur Telescopes?
Replies
2
Views
6K
B How Does Telescope Magnification Differ from Resolving Power?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Stargazing Can Stars Be Spaghettified in a Matter of Days by Black Holes?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Stargazing Calculating the Resolving power of a Telescope
Replies
7
Views
4K
A Continuous Field Image: Hubble Deep Field & Exoplanets
Replies
5
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top