What is the highest redshift object ever observed in the universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaos' lil bro Order
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observed Redshift
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the highest redshift objects observed in the universe, particularly focusing on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the potential redshift of a lensed object associated with Abell. Participants explore the definitions of "objects" in this context and the implications for cosmological theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the highest redshift observed is the CMB at z~1100, but question whether it qualifies as a single coherent "object."
  • There is a discussion about the Abell-lensed object at z=10, with some suggesting that further studies have cast doubt on its high redshift status.
  • Participants reference various studies and analyses that either support or challenge the detection of the z=10 galaxy, indicating mixed findings.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of observing the CMB for cosmological theories, particularly in relation to the Big Bang Theory.
  • There is mention of the polarization of the CMB, with some contributions clarifying the origins of these polarizations and their relation to reionization.
  • Questions arise about the interpretation of data from the WMAP regarding inhomogeneities and acoustic peaks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the CMB should be classified as an object with the highest redshift. There is no consensus on the status of the Abell-lensed object, with some asserting it has been falsified while others remain uncertain about its classification.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various studies and data sources, but there are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of "objects" and the implications of redshift measurements. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of the CMB and its role in cosmology.

Chaos' lil bro Order
Messages
682
Reaction score
2
Hi, what is the highest redshift observed for any 'object' in the Universe?

Also, is the Abell-lensed 'object' still viewed as a possible candidate (at Z=10) or have people further studied this lensed 'object' and determined its high redshift as an error?

Thanks you.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Hi, what is the highest redshift observed for any 'object' in the Universe?

See here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113862&page=4"

In particular, post #55.


Also, is the Abell-lensed 'object' still viewed as a possible candidate (at Z=10) or have people further studied this lensed 'object' and determined its high redshift as an error?

It looks to be bogus:

http://xxx.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601181"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well, technically the highest redshift 'object' oberved thus far is the CMB at z~1100.

As for the z=10 galaxy, I believe I already answered this in this post in another thread:https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=936972&postcount=11"

The NED link you refenced in that thread provided 4 references, 1 of which found no evidence of a detection of the z=10 in the H-waveband (where Pello detected it) and the other reanalysed the original data and failed to detect the line used in the original analysis to determine a redshift.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
matt.o said:
well, technically the highest redshift 'object' oberved thus far is the CMB at z~1100.

This is certainly true, though in my experience, that's usually not what people mean. The surface of last scattering can be seen in all directions and doesn't, IMO, constitute a single coherent "object". Chaos, do you understand what the CMB really is and why it might or might not be called the object with the highest redshift?
 
SpaceTiger said:
This is certainly true, though in my experience, that's usually not what people mean. The surface of last scattering can be seen in all directions and doesn't, IMO, constitute a single coherent "object".

True. I was just being smart! I think I remember Charley Lineweaver saying in one of his talks "Those galaxy guys get excited about obseving galaxies at z=7, well that's nothing. I observe the CMB at redshift 1100!" or something along those lines.
 
matt.o said:
True. I was just being smart! I think I remember Charley Lineweaver saying in one of his talks "Those galaxy guys get excited about obseving galaxies at z=7, well that's nothing. I observe the CMB at redshift 1100!" or something along those lines.


Yeah, I know what you mean, but I think it really is a good thing for people to keep in mind, particularly when considering the Big Bang Theory. If we really couldn't observe anything past z=7, cosmological theory would be working from a much narrower baseline and there might still be genuine reason to question the expanding universe...

Probably not, though. :biggrin:
 
Yes, I understand the CMB has been redshifted from ~1000nm (3000K) to ~1mm (~2.75K), if memory serves me. Wasn't it released around 380,000LY post BB? And the polarizations in it were left by the Reionization Period?
 
Ok, matt.O, so the z-10 object was falsified, gotcha. CMB is an object? Naw, but a funny joke of a concept.
 
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
And the polarizations in it were left by the Reionization Period?

Some of the polarization comes from reionization, though much was made at the surface of last scattering (z~1100). We can measure a power spectrum of the polarization anisotropies just like with the temperature and both show multi-peaked structure coming from oscillations in the early universe.
 
  • #10
SpaceTiger said:
Some of the polarization comes from reionization, though much was made at the surface of last scattering (z~1100). We can measure a power spectrum of the polarization anisotropies just like with the temperature and both show multi-peaked structure coming from oscillations in the early universe.


Are you referring to the 1 degree inhomogenities in the WMAP data?
 
  • #11
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Are you referring to the 1 degree inhomogenities in the WMAP data?

The first acoustic peak is at about one degree, but there are two others at smaller angular scales. The inhomogeneities in polarization caused by reionization are at much larger angular scales (>~20 degrees).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K