Hubble ultra deep field - beyond the big bang

[diondrechsler]

was just reading about the Hubble ultra deep field photo / life the universe etc; here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Universe


they re saying they can photograph the universe to 13billion light years distant / back in time (hubble photo caption a little way down says "Hubble Ultra Deep Field image of a small region of the observable universe, near the constellation Fornax. The light from the smallest, most redshifted galaxies originated roughly 13 billion years ago"

as the cameras evolve they re saying they ll be able to go back further, so...

a) will they be able to take a photo of the big bang? why / why not?

b) now if we think of the big bang as a point in space and not in time for a second... the universe is 93 billion light years across but the big bang only happened 13.7billion years ago so things are speeding away from us faster than the speed of light on the other side of the point at which the big bang occurred ... will we never be able to take a photo of anything that side of the big bang no matter how far our telescopes can zoom simply because everything's moving away faster than the speed of light,- or - because photographing before / beyond the big bang is an impossibility because nothing s meant to exist before it..? does the big bang as a time event get in the way of a telescopes physical zoom power - what would a telescope that could zoom 50billion light years see, and what would be stopping it if it could see nothing?



ha and if you can answer that question you probably deserve an award in astronomy and cryptography... cheers

 

[DM]

b) so things are speeding away from us faster than the speed of light on the other side of the point at which the big bang occurred ... will we never be able to take a photo of anything that side of the big bang no matter how far our telescopes can zoom simply because everything's moving away faster than the speed of light,- or - because photographing before / beyond the big bang is an impossibility because nothing s meant to exist before it..?

What makes you think there is another "side of the point at which the big bang occurred"? The singularity at which the big bang derived from is still not understood today, let alone having another side. The problem is that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Hence why should the big bang have expanded at a speed greater than light?

 

[mgb_phys]

You can't say anything about before the big bang - there was no time so nothing can happen.
The universe however can expand faster than the speed of light, and did so during the infaltion stage - relativity just says that no information can travel faster than light, there is no problem with a universe exapanding faster than this.

 

[BoomBoom]

what would a telescope that could zoom 50billion light years see, and what would be stopping it if it could see nothing?

I believe conventional cosmology describes a threshold in which recession speeds are too great for the light emitted to ever reach us...and I think current technology is right at the cusp of that threshold?

If we could see galaxies 50 billion light years away, I think they would have to, at least, re-evaluate the presumed age of the universe...among other things. :)

 

[mgb_phys]

Correct the universe is around 14GYr old - so we can only see things less than 14G light years away - this is the obeevable universe, although the distance we can see is expanding by a light year every year!
The universe is larger than this because of the inflation stage early in it's life, we can't see most of the universe.

In a sense we can already see back to the big bang, in that we see the microwave background - this is the point at which the universe became transparent, so it is impossible to see anything before this.
Improved technology does let us see more distant galaxies, or those that formed earlier after the big bang but this is limited by the age/time at which the first galaxies formed.

 

[russ_watters]

does the big bang as a time event get in the way of a telescopes physical zoom power - what would a telescope that could zoom 50billion light years see, and what would be stopping it if it could see nothing?

Magnification and time depth of field are unrelated except insofar as distant objects are smaller. But even a backyard telescope (a good one) has enough magnification that it could see most of the galaxies in the HUDF -- if it were able to gather enough light. And that's the limiting factor. It's not magnification, it's light gathering. You don't "zoom to" a distance, you take a longer exposure to capture dimmer (and thus more distant) objects.

 

[russ_watters]

What makes you think there is another "side of the point at which the big bang occurred"?

Just to clarify a little, this thinking is a biproduct of the concept of the Big Bang being like and explosion, where we are somewhere away from a center and there is another side beyond it. But since the Big Bang happened everywhere at once, there is no center, or rather, any point can be seen as a center. So there is no "other side" to look to. The universe looks the same in every direction.

 

[yenchin]

Can telescope even see pass anything before matter-radiation decoupling time?

 

[diondrechsler]

wow every answer brings about twenty more questions thanks though a lot of that made sense


cheeeeeeers

 

[monkeymoney]

I have a couple of thoughts to share. One if you think of the "other side" of the big bang as that being problematic for photographing, what about "THIS" side? Why not aim the Hubble in the direction we are going, that way we won't have so far to look because we have been traveling in the same direction. MUCH shorter considering how far we have traveled since Earth was created.
Second, and more importantly, most people are missing one very important concept about the big bang. Most see that as some kind of a beginning. However I believe that before the big bang was... the previous big bang and collapse and before that another big bang and collapse. This current expansion is just one of millions or billions that have happened over "time". What 'cha all thing of that?
Monkeymoney

 

[russ_watters]

You are under the very common misconception that the universe has a center. It does not. So there isn't a "this side" or "other side" or a "direction we are going".

 

[monkeymoney]

I Russ, Actually I don't think that the universe has a center. I was posing that as more of a hypotherical to the person that posted about photographing the "other side" of the universe as being problematic because of the expansion at near the speed of light. Asking about "our" side as being the alternative that might work was just to open up that concept as negating his concept, or rather opening up the question as to why we couldn't photograph our side.
There are obviously things we just don't know and probably just can't comprehend. I certainly can't. Appreciate your comments though.
Oh and I don't believe that the big bang was the start of everything. If there was a big bang, it wasn't the first.
Monkeymoney

 

[Chronos]

Decoupling [~380,000 years post BB] is the photonic limit of observation. A neutrino telescope, however, could 'see' almost all the way back to the BB. Building such a telescope is, however, a challenge. Observational evidence for a BB as the 'beginning' of this universe is overwhelming. It is possible this has happened before [re: cyclical universe], but, no evidence or way to test this idea has been proposed. Until such time, it is pure speculation IMO.

 

[Cryptonic26]

I fall into the category as some of the other folks as not being fully capable of understanding the concept that the universe does not have a center.. I mean, all objects have a center of mass, so too should the universe?

Therefore, if all objects in the universe are expanding away from one another, then the universe is essentially expanding from it's center of mass (at least from an external perspective)... Isn't it?

Bottom line, I think most of us uneducated folks assume that light takes longer to traverse between the two most distant objects in the universe with each passing second, so if we face in one particular direction (the direction towards the edge of the universe we are closest to), we should see more up-to-date images, while if we turn around, we should see images that are aging slower than the rest of everything else. Or at the very least, more red-shifted.

Or is this going to start a circular/toroidial universe theory debate here?

 

[russ_watters]

I fall into the category as some of the other folks as not being fully capable of understanding the concept that the universe does not have a center.. I mean, all objects have a center of mass, so too should the universe?

That's an incorrect analogy because the universe is not a simple 3d object. That's why the balloon analogy, of a 2d object expanding in a 3d space is used. The surface of the balloon has no center.

Therefore, if all objects in the universe are expanding away from one another, then the universe is essentially expanding from it's center of mass (at least from an external perspective)... Isn't it?

Nope.

 

[neutralseer]

There are a few errors early in this thread:

Correct the universe is around 14GYr old - so we can only see things less than 14G light years away - this is the obeevable universe, although the distance we can see is expanding by a light year every year!

Yes the universe is ~14Gyr old, but we can see things that are farther than 14G light years away! Distance is tricky thing in cosmology, but when you look at light that was emitted ~14Gyr ago (e.g. the CMB), the thing that emitted the light 14 Gyr ago we are now seeing is currently farther away than 14G light years due to the expansion of the Universe.

Furthermore, the boundary of the observable universe (the particle horizon or the light horizon) is not expanding at the speed of light.

You can't say anything about before the big bang - there was no time so nothing can happen. The universe however can expand faster than the speed of light, and did so during the infaltion stage - relativity just says that no information can travel faster than light, there is no problem with a universe exapanding faster than this.

This doesn’t contain any technical mistakes, but it does give one an incorrect idea. The incorrect idea is that two points in the universe could only have faster than light recessional “velocities” relative to each other during inflation (a period of exponential expansion that occurred within the first few fractions of a second after the big bang). While it is correct that faster than light recessional velocities occurred during inflation, it is also true that faster than light recessional velocities are occurring now. We can see galaxies that are currently receding from us faster than the speed of light!

For a non-technical relaxing Scientific American article you can curl up by fire with, I highly recommend http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf" . It explains more about these common misconceptions of the big bang (it’s the article that marcus--an Astro/Cosmology guru--has at the bottom of every post).

 

[Cryptonic26]

That's an incorrect analogy because the universe is not a simple 3d object. That's why the balloon analogy, of a 2d object expanding in a 3d space is used. The surface of the balloon has no center. Nope.

So you believe that if you keep traveling in one direction, you'll eventually arrive at the point where you began? If this were the case, then I can understand the analogy-- but I'm not convinced that this is the case, so I have difficulty with the balloon analogy.

 

[russ_watters]

It is the case, yes.

 

[BoomBoom]

So you believe that if you keep traveling in one direction, you'll eventually arrive at the point where you began? If this were the case, then I can understand the analogy-- but I'm not convinced that this is the case, so I have difficulty with the balloon analogy.

It is also possible that this is not the case. I believe an infinite flat universe has not yet been ruled out.

 

[navneet023]

Just to clarify a little, this thinking is a biproduct of the concept of the Big Bang being like and explosion, where we are somewhere away from a center and there is another side beyond it. But since the Big Bang happened everywhere at once, there is no center, or rather, any point can be seen as a center. So there is no "other side" to look to. The universe looks the same in every direction.

jus stumbled upon ur comment...have read about it many times...many books...universe is equal in every direction nd every point is the centre of universe..doesnt that mean that the universe is infinite...(again a headache for maths)...it has to be infinite...den only each point in the universe will be equal...m i right in understanding ur concept...


also regarding that balloon concept...was a kid wen came to know of it nd agreed wid it at first...now i disagree...point is...if the universe is the surface of the baloon...den...wats inside the balloon?there has to be something inside na...some dark matter...some energy sort of thing...some force which is pushing things away...there has to be some thing...

 

[yenchin]

jus stumbled upon ur comment...have read about it many times...many books...universe is equal in every direction nd every point is the centre of universe..doesnt that mean that the universe is infinite...(again a headache for maths)...it has to be infinite...den only each point in the universe will be equal...m i right in understanding ur concept...

No. A finite universe do just as well. Imagine a spherical balloon again. At each point (homogeneous) it looks the same regardless of what direction you look (isotropic).

also regarding that balloon concept...was a kid wen came to know of it nd agreed wid it at first...now i disagree...point is...if the universe is the surface of the baloon...den...wats inside the balloon?there has to be something inside na...some dark matter...some energy sort of thing...some force which is pushing things away...there has to be some thing...

Analogy analogy analogy. There balloon is not meant to be taken too literally. There is no *inside* of the balloon because that is not part of the analogy. The entire balloon thing is just a analogy of how expansion is increase of distance no matter where you are on a balloon, i.e. the universe (the surface of the balloon) has no center. Don't take analogy beyond what it is meant for.

 

[navneet023]

No. A finite universe do just as well. Imagine a spherical balloon again. At each point (homogeneous) it looks the same regardless of what direction you look (isotropic).





Analogy analogy analogy. There balloon is not meant to be taken too literally. There is no *inside* of the balloon because that is not part of the analogy. The entire balloon thing is just a analogy of how expansion is increase of distance no matter where you are on a balloon, i.e. the universe (the surface of the balloon) has no center. Don't take analogy beyond what it is meant for.

so wat cud be the possible structure of the universe??is it flat wid crests nd troughs in it...due to mass here nd there...or sphere..wid nothing in between nd everything on the surface...why it can't be like a balloon...it fits na..nd it may also account for the huge mass gap that causes a prob wenevr we try to claculate if the universe will stop expanding one day or will it keep expanding..a/c Friedmenn's assumptions(made in 1965,if m not wrong)

 

[Gear300]

also regarding that balloon concept...was a kid wen came to know of it nd agreed wid it at first...now i disagree...point is...if the universe is the surface of the baloon...den...wats inside the balloon?there has to be something inside na...some dark matter...some energy sort of thing...some force which is pushing things away...there has to be some thing...

I just need to see what could be right or wrong about this claim. In consideration to negative matter, which repels the material matter...if the universe was shaped like a balloon, then isn't possible that the negative matter could have clumped inside the balloon (in repulsion from the material matter) and that the expansion of the universe is due to the repulsion between the material matter and clumping negative matter?

 

[navneet023]

I just need to see what could be right or wrong about this claim. In consideration to negative matter, which repels the material matter...if the universe was shaped like a balloon, then isn't possible that the negative matter could have clumped inside the balloon (in repulsion from the material matter) and that the expansion of the universe is due to the repulsion between the material matter and clumping negative matter?

dats the thing i m also trying to propose..well not say propose coz i don't have any hi-tech instruments wid me in order to carry out proof giving experiments...lolzz...i work nd m trying to get as much time as possible in order to understand everything from the begining...papers published by scientists are not for me as the lang. is too scientific ...so i need to know everything beforehand na...nd m working over interrelating the formulae...hope i don't get messed up...

BTW...any takers for my...oops...our idea of negative matter inside the balloon thing...??please reply as m losing my sleep over it for past 4 weeks.. :(

 

[Gear300]

dats the thing i m also trying to propose..well not say propose coz i don't have any hi-tech instruments wid me in order to carry out proof giving experiments...lolzz...i work nd m trying to get as much time as possible in order to understand everything from the begining...papers published by scientists are not for me as the lang. is too scientific ...so i need to know everything beforehand na...nd m working over interrelating the formulae...hope i don't get messed up...

BTW...any takers for my...oops...our idea of negative matter inside the balloon thing...??please reply as m losing my sleep over it for past 4 weeks.. :(

Good luck with the proposal...it'd be interesting if the concept is proved right.

 

[navneet023]

Good luck with the proposal...it'd be interesting if the concept is proved right.

thanks buddy...can u suggest where can I formally put up this thing...I mean where the biggies can see this and notice it...if possible...Coz I know they dun sopend their tym like me...they mus be doing smthng serious.. :) quite unlike me...

 

[Gear300]

thanks buddy...can u suggest where can I formally put up this thing...I mean where the biggies can see this and notice it...if possible...Coz I know they dun sopend their tym like me...they mus be doing smthng serious.. :) quite unlike me...

To be honest...I have no idea where this can be formally put up. I am more or less an amateur at the field, so I don't have much experience with this sort of thing.

Does anyone else know?

 

[russ_watters]

There is nothing to be "put up" here. You were right when you said the inside of the balloon is not part of the analogy. So this idea is just nonsense.

Navneet023, the first time you will be qualified to put forth a new theory on the subject is in your phd thesis. A layperson cannot hope to expand a frontier of knowledge he/she has no understanding of.

 

[navneet023]

There is nothing to be "put up" here. You were right when you said the inside of the balloon is not part of the analogy. So this idea is just nonsense.

Navneet023, the first time you will be qualified to put forth a new theory on the subject is in your phd thesis. A layperson cannot hope to expand a frontier of knowledge he/she has no understanding of.

Thanks for the guidance russ_watters .. :) I appreciate it...And for sure I will try to improve myself..If The degree is required...so be it.. :)

And I didn't say that the inside of the balloon is not the part of the analogy..I meant that the balloon thing might be the exact idea which can lead us to the "shape" of the universe, and the "space" inside the balloon can describe the reason for extra but invisible mass of the universe..

 

[Gear300]

There is nothing to be "put up" here. You were right when you said the inside of the balloon is not part of the analogy. So this idea is just nonsense.

I see, I see...
nonsense can be fun sometimes

 

[russ_watters]

nonsense can be fun sometimes

It can, but we strive to be a serious forum.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the guidance russ_watters .. :) I appreciate it...And for sure I will try to improve myself..If The degree is required...so be it.. :)

That said, you may want to start out by reading some of the good lay-person oriented books on the subject, such as the ones by Stephen Hawking.

 

[navneet023]

That said, you may want to start out by reading some of the good lay-person oriented books on the subject, such as the ones by Stephen Hawking.

I have read that one a long time ago...i know i am a layman...but not that one...i am having less knowledge...but that doesn't imply that i am ignorant..

 

[russ_watters]

I meant no offense - the only thing I had to gage your level of knowledge was what I saw in this thread.

 

[azzkika]

There is nothing to be "put up" here. You were right when you said the inside of the balloon is not part of the analogy. So this idea is just nonsense.

Navneet023, the first time you will be qualified to put forth a new theory on the subject is in your phd thesis. A layperson cannot hope to expand a frontier of knowledge he/she has no understanding of.

not necessarily. assuming that the majority and models of theories that are assumed almost correct and very accurate, are in fact not very accurate, and that by doing a phd in physics, although well versed in many of these theories be, be possibly misguided and blinkered to alternatives that disagree with the commonly held views of the experts.

although one would probably need to know the math with which to explain a model, they would not need it to suggest possible models. and as nearly everything is supposition and theory, until there is a disproveable model every model is worthy of equal consideration.

according to many articles on here things are moving at faster than the speed of light relative to each other. this was believed impossible not so long ago, now it seems a fact if recessional velocity calculations are correct. so although lay person may be open to greater error in their judgement, it does not imply instant error just a greater probability.

 

[russ_watters]

according to many articles on here things are moving at faster than the speed of light relative to each other. this was believed impossible not so long ago, now it seems a fact if recessional velocity calculations are correct. so although lay person may be open to greater error in their judgement, it does not imply instant error just a greater probability.

That's actually a good example of the danger for a layperson in trying to overreach their knowledge. Many believe that to be a violation of Relativity, but it isn't.

 

[azzkika]

That's actually a good example of the danger for a layperson in trying to overreach their knowledge. Many believe that to be a violation of Relativity, but it isn't.

i didn't say it was a violation, only that it was a commonly held view, among experts and lay people alike, until evidence suggested otherwise. my point being it matters not how much or how little one knows as to their opinion being correct or not, if the very best knowledge is still only theory and unproven models of what our universe is then every opinion holds as much weight as the next until disproven.

granted the layperson has a greater probability of error, but if probability always came out on top then the favourites would always win football matches as they have the higher probability due to more skillful players yet it is not the case. in this way, the experts may not always be more correct in their models / explanation of the universe.

i say this and i wish for nothing more than an exponential genius to come along and exlain everything with proof. it is on the experts we rely, but don't dismiss the simpler minded, as until unproven, may be correct.

 

[azzkika]

So you believe that if you keep traveling in one direction, you'll eventually arrive at the point where you began? If this were the case, then I can understand the analogy-- but I'm not convinced that this is the case, so I have difficulty with the balloon analogy.

the following post to this was 'the answer is yes'.

if this is so, if i travel to the egde of the universe in a straight line that avoids the orbit of the Earth around our sun and our solar system around our galaxy, how could i come back to the place i began?? surely i would keep on going. and if i reach the edge and keep going assuming there is no space time beyong the edge, i would expand spacetime by traveling where previously there was none. as if there was no spacetime until the universe expanded for space time to exists, and increases as matter travels to where there previously was none, then i would replicate this effect would i not?? and continually expand spacetime if i carried on travelling, not come back on myself but forever get further away.

 

[russ_watters]

i didn't say it was a violation, only that it was a commonly held view, among experts and lay people alike, until evidence suggested otherwise. my point being it matters not how much or how little one knows as to their opinion being correct or not, if the very best knowledge is still only theory and unproven models of what our universe is then every opinion holds as much weight as the next until disproven.

I'm still not seeing why this matters. Scientists were not being dogmatic about it and the discovery was not made by a layperson, so how does that support the idea that a layperson could make a meaningful discovery that an experienced scientist wouldn't?

granted the layperson has a greater probability of error, but if probability always came out on top then the favourites would always win football matches as they have the higher probability due to more skillful players yet it is not the case. in this way, the experts may not always be more correct in their models / explanation of the universe.

Ok, it is said that a blind squirrel sometimes still finds the nut. But does he really? Has a layperson ever come up with a major new theory before?

 

[azzkika]

You are under the very common misconception that the universe has a center. It does not. So there isn't a "this side" or "other side" or a "direction we are going".

until we know the entire universe we cannot say if it does or does not have a centre. if the universe is finite, there mathematically has to be a centre even if it is constantly variable due to motion. if it is infinite then maybe not. there is a blind squirrel finding a nut. you may not think it a legitimate nut, but to my simple mind it makes more sense than some other theories.

i didn't mean anything personal or insulting, i was just pointing out that a lot of the experts have so far been found to be incorrect at some point in the future by better science and information. of course they are more likely to discover more truths than an ignorant person, but that doesn't mean you need a phd to think about the universe in way that makes sense to oneself, even if it disagrees with experts opinions. i am happy to try and learn, but anything that does not fit into my simple logic, i will argue, not to be proven right but to try and learn and comprehend the correct answer.

challenging a theory is a good thing i think as to be correct must hold up to any scrutiny.

 

[russ_watters]

until we know the entire universe we cannot say if it does or does not have a centre. if the universe is finite, there mathematically has to be a centre even if it is constantly variable due to motion.

Neither of those statements is true. Mathematically, there does not have to be a center. That is a simple matter of geometry that you can see in the analogies people use.

People assert that all the time (that there must be a center) - it happens here almost every day. It doesn't matter how many times people say it. It just plain isn't true.

 

[Chronos]

The observational limits of the universe are exactly the same in every direction for all observers - no matter where [or when] they are. In other words, every observer is invariably at the apparent center of the universe. The concept of an 'absolute' center is 'not even wrong'.

 

[AhmedEzz]

By following this thread, I think that we simply lack the proper instrumentation, techonology and science to be certain whether the universe has an absolute center or not. The analogy remains an analogy, you want to say its a balloon like but it doesn't have a center...why? can you present undeniable evidence, or is ti just the way you were taught to think?

Moreover, if the universe is expanding when do you think it will ever end? what is the consequences and reason for this expansion?

 

[azzkika]

The observational limits of the universe are exactly the same in every direction for all observers - no matter where [or when] they are. In other words, every observer is invariably at the apparent center of the universe. The concept of an 'absolute' center is 'not even wrong'.

that is due to the limits of technology. someone elsewhere in the universe with better technology may be able to see further. why is it not true that a finite thing can have a centre? just because we cannot observe everything, and therefore the edges of our universe, if it has any, does not mean a centre does not exist.

and if you lived on a planet at the edge of the universe it would not look the same in all directions as space time most probably does not exist past the edges yet, and it would be dark beyond that horizon as no light exists there. we are so far from any edge, if one exists, to detect it. to say it has no edge means it is infinite. if it has an edge it has a centre and does not look the same in all directions irrespective of where you are.

 

[Louis B]

This reminds me of a topic on the fourth spatial dimension, and I think just as the second dimension operates on a third dimensional sphere, our third dimension might operate on a fourth dimensional hypersphere (the balloon). So, if we were in the second dimension, and we went all the way around our second dimensional universe, we would find ourselves back where we started. I believe it could be the same for our realmspace in that if we continue in one particular direction, we'll see familiar space.

This seems to tie together everything: The balloon analogy, the alignment with multi-dimensional properties, the theory that black holes could be wormholes, etc.

-Louis

 

[russ_watters]

No, no, no, no, NO! Azzkika and Ahmedezz: If you guys aren't going to listen to what is being said, then there is no point to continuing the thread. These questions have been answered repeatedly and it doesn't matter how many times you make the assertion: it is still wrong. This is the reality:

-A finite object does not have to have a center.
-This is not a matter of technology, it is a matter of geometry.

Thread closed.