Research Discussion: Deepest Image Yet

Deepest Image Yet
Posts: 15

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

HVAC
2009-12-09 07:37:38 EST
The new Wide Field Camera 3 aboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope
has taken the deepest image yet of the Universe in near-infrared
light. The faintest and reddest objects in the image are likely the
oldest galaxies ever identified, having formed between only 600-900
million years after the Big Bang.

In 2004, Hubble created the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), the
deepest visible-light image of the Universe, and now, with its brand-
new camera, Hubble is seeing even farther. This image was taken in the
same region as the visible HUDF, but is taken at longer wavelengths.
Hubble's newly installed Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) collects light
from near-infrared wavelengths and therefore looks even farther back
towards the Big Bang, because the light from hot young stars in these
very distant galaxies is stretched out of the ultraviolet and visible
regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the
expansion of the Universe. This new deep view also provides insights
into how galaxies grew in their formative years early in the
Universe's history.

A boon to astronomers worldwide, the new WFC3 data -- taken by the
HUDF09 team -- have set a multitude of teams to work, furiously
searching for the most distant galaxies yet discovered. In just three
months, twelve scientific papers on these new data have been
submitted.

This image was taken by the HUDF09 team [1], which has made it
available for research by astronomers worldwide. The photo was taken
with the new WFC3/infrared camera on Hubble in late August 2009,
during a total of four days of pointing for 173 000 seconds of total
exposure time. Infrared light is invisible to the human eye and
therefore does not have colours that can be perceived. The
representation is "natural" in that shorter infrared wavelengths are
represented as blue and the longer wavelengths as red. The faintest
objects are about one billion times fainter than the dimmest visible
objects seen with the naked eye.

These Hubble observations are blazing a trail for Hubble's successor,
the NASA/ESA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which will look even
farther into the Universe than Hubble, at infrared wavelengths. The
launch of JWST is planned for 2014.


http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46049

Sir Gilligan Horry
2009-12-09 13:40:35 EST

A couple of stars in that photo too.
I like to see stars in front of many galaxies
in those type of photos.

Thanks.

_______________________

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 04:37:38 -0800 (PST), HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The new Wide Field Camera 3 aboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope
>has taken the deepest image yet of the Universe in near-infrared
>light. The faintest and reddest objects in the image are likely the
>oldest galaxies ever identified, having formed between only 600-900
>million years after the Big Bang.
>
>In 2004, Hubble created the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), the
>deepest visible-light image of the Universe, and now, with its brand-
>new camera, Hubble is seeing even farther. This image was taken in the
>same region as the visible HUDF, but is taken at longer wavelengths.
>Hubble's newly installed Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) collects light
>from near-infrared wavelengths and therefore looks even farther back
>towards the Big Bang, because the light from hot young stars in these
>very distant galaxies is stretched out of the ultraviolet and visible
>regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the
>expansion of the Universe. This new deep view also provides insights
>into how galaxies grew in their formative years early in the
>Universe's history.
>
>A boon to astronomers worldwide, the new WFC3 data -- taken by the
>HUDF09 team -- have set a multitude of teams to work, furiously
>searching for the most distant galaxies yet discovered. In just three
>months, twelve scientific papers on these new data have been
>submitted.
>
>This image was taken by the HUDF09 team [1], which has made it
>available for research by astronomers worldwide. The photo was taken
>with the new WFC3/infrared camera on Hubble in late August 2009,
>during a total of four days of pointing for 173 000 seconds of total
>exposure time. Infrared light is invisible to the human eye and
>therefore does not have colours that can be perceived. The
>representation is "natural" in that shorter infrared wavelengths are
>represented as blue and the longer wavelengths as red. The faintest
>objects are about one billion times fainter than the dimmest visible
>objects seen with the naked eye.
>
>These Hubble observations are blazing a trail for Hubble's successor,
>the NASA/ESA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which will look even
>farther into the Universe than Hubble, at infrared wavelengths. The
>launch of JWST is planned for 2014.
>
>
>http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46049


Ollie
2009-12-09 19:42:16 EST

"HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af332185-caf7-430f-8c22-6b407dc8a1c9@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> The new Wide Field Camera 3 aboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope
> has taken the deepest image yet of the Universe in near-infrared
> light. The faintest and reddest objects in the image are likely the
> oldest galaxies ever identified, having formed between only 600-900
> million years after the Big Bang.
>
> In 2004, Hubble created the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), the
> deepest visible-light image of the Universe, and now, with its brand-
> new camera, Hubble is seeing even farther. This image was taken in the
> same region as the visible HUDF, but is taken at longer wavelengths.
> Hubble's newly installed Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) collects light
> from near-infrared wavelengths and therefore looks even farther back
> towards the Big Bang, because the light from hot young stars in these
> very distant galaxies is stretched out of the ultraviolet and visible
> regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the
> expansion of the Universe. This new deep view also provides insights
> into how galaxies grew in their formative years early in the
> Universe's history.
>
> A boon to astronomers worldwide, the new WFC3 data -- taken by the
> HUDF09 team -- have set a multitude of teams to work, furiously
> searching for the most distant galaxies yet discovered. In just three
> months, twelve scientific papers on these new data have been
> submitted.
>
> This image was taken by the HUDF09 team [1], which has made it
> available for research by astronomers worldwide. The photo was taken
> with the new WFC3/infrared camera on Hubble in late August 2009,
> during a total of four days of pointing for 173 000 seconds of total
> exposure time. Infrared light is invisible to the human eye and
> therefore does not have colours that can be perceived. The
> representation is "natural" in that shorter infrared wavelengths are
> represented as blue and the longer wavelengths as red. The faintest
> objects are about one billion times fainter than the dimmest visible
> objects seen with the naked eye.
>
> These Hubble observations are blazing a trail for Hubble's successor,
> the NASA/ESA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which will look even
> farther into the Universe than Hubble, at infrared wavelengths. The
> launch of JWST is planned for 2014.
>
>
> http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46049

Does anybody know how big a jump it is to go from ultraviolet to microwave?
And does this 600 - 900 million years to get to infrared jive with the CMB
bein' in the microwave range?
So, it takes the galaxies in the new images 600 - 900 million years to
evolve, and they radiate in the near-infrared?
So why doesn't the microwave CMB radiate instead in the infrared, if there
was only 600 - 900 million years difference?
Does ANYBODY wonder about these things and ask these questions?

--
Ollie




Nightcrawler
2009-12-09 21:26:41 EST

"Ollie" <darlaperenosp@maol.com> wrote in message news:4b2043e9$0$4891$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Does anybody know how big a jump it is to go from ultraviolet to microwave?

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

> And does this 600 - 900 million years to get to infrared jive with the CMB bein' in the microwave range?
> So, it takes the galaxies in the new images 600 - 900 million years to evolve, and they radiate in the near-infrared?
> So why doesn't the microwave CMB radiate instead in the infrared, if there was only 600 - 900 million years difference?
> Does ANYBODY wonder about these things and ask these questions?

600-900 million is travel time.

I suspect CMB is Cosmic Background Radiation?

If so, that took more than a 6-9 hundred million years to get here.

So, off, or on, the Prozac today?




Ollie
2009-12-09 21:41:33 EST

"Nightcrawler" <Dirtydeeds@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:qaednegwT6r7wb3WnZ2dnUVZ_hYAAAAA@giganews.com...
>
> "Ollie" <darlaperenosp@maol.com> wrote in message
> news:4b2043e9$0$4891$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> Does anybody know how big a jump it is to go from ultraviolet to
>> microwave?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
>
>> And does this 600 - 900 million years to get to infrared jive with the
>> CMB bein' in the microwave range?
>> So, it takes the galaxies in the new images 600 - 900 million years to
>> evolve, and they radiate in the near-infrared?
>> So why doesn't the microwave CMB radiate instead in the infrared, if
>> there was only 600 - 900 million years difference?
>> Does ANYBODY wonder about these things and ask these questions?
>
> 600-900 million is travel time.
>
> I suspect CMB is Cosmic Background Radiation?
>
> If so, that took more than a 6-9 hundred million years to get here.
>
> So, off, or on, the Prozac today?
>
>
>

Naw, what I meant was, if the CMB is only 600 - 900 million years older than
those galaxies in the new pics, then why are the galaxies received in the
near-infrared, but the CMB is received way farther down the spectrum in the
microwave part?

And what about the other cosmic background radiations?
Aren't there more than just microwaves?

What's with all these old-guy photons, eh?
None of it seems to jive.

--
Ollie




Nightcrawler
2009-12-09 22:40:24 EST

"Ollie" <darlaperenosp@maol.com> wrote in message news:4b205fdd$0$4869$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Naw, what I meant was, if the CMB is only 600 - 900 million years older than those galaxies in the new pics, then why are the
> galaxies received in the near-infrared, but the CMB is received way farther down the spectrum in the microwave part?
>
> And what about the other cosmic background radiations?
> Aren't there more than just microwaves?
>
> What's with all these old-guy photons, eh?
> None of it seems to jive.

You might like this X-Ray image of Sagittarius A:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/98909main_0203long_xray_m.jpg

I know, non sequitur.

CMB Faq:

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

Quirky image:

http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/cmb_timeline75.jpg

General page:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/

Oh, and just to make you do a lot of reading:

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/galform.html

Bwahahaha. Part of your answer is in the last link. ;)



Ollie
2009-12-10 01:30:42 EST

"Nightcrawler" <Dirtydeeds@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:I_6dnQYWQqdQ8L3WnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Ollie" <darlaperenosp@maol.com> wrote in message
> news:4b205fdd$0$4869$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>> Naw, what I meant was, if the CMB is only 600 - 900 million years older
>> than those galaxies in the new pics, then why are the galaxies received
>> in the near-infrared, but the CMB is received way farther down the
>> spectrum in the microwave part?
>>
>> And what about the other cosmic background radiations?
>> Aren't there more than just microwaves?
>>
>> What's with all these old-guy photons, eh?
>> None of it seems to jive.
>
> You might like this X-Ray image of Sagittarius A:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/images/content/98909main_0203long_xray_m.jpg
>
> I know, non sequitur.
>
> CMB Faq:
>
> http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html
>
> Quirky image:
>
> http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/cmb_timeline75.jpg
>
> General page:
>
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/
>
> Oh, and just to make you do a lot of reading:
>
> http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/galform.html
>
> Bwahahaha. Part of your answer is in the last link. ;)
>

I'm not doing homework.
I just asked a simple question.
And "dark matter", eh?
There's your "Bwahahaha" raised to the nth power.

What?
You think I haven't read all that stuff?
Why the blazes you think I asked the question, eh?

Here's the thing: Reread all that great conjecture material, and then give
your opinion as to the answer to my question.
If you don't want to reread it, that's okay.
But if you want your opinion to be fresh, a good fresh reread helps a lot,
eh?

Once more the simple question.
Why is the microwave background considered to consist of photons so old that
they are leftover remnants of the Big Bang, and yet galaxies seen that are
whole developed galaxies that are said to have developed only 600 - 900
million years after the Big Bang yield to us photons in the near-infrared
range?
Why aren't the galaxy photons getting to us in, say, high microwave? or why
isn't the CMB more of an infrared background INSTEAD of a microwave
background? (why does the cosmic background radiation contain a microwave
component at all?)
Hope that's clear enough, eh?

(And please don't invoke "dark matter".
It just makes you sound like you're coppin' out.)

--
Ollie






Nightcrawler
2009-12-10 12:14:44 EST

"Ollie" <darlaperenosp@maol.com> wrote in message news:4b209593$0$5102$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> (And please don't invoke "dark matter".
> It just makes you sound like you're coppin' out.)

I don't give a rip about "dark matter".

I stated that part of your answer was in the last link. You need to find that part and get
back to me.



BradGuth
2009-12-10 13:56:10 EST
On Dec 9, 4:37 am, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The new Wide Field Camera 3 aboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope
> has taken the deepest image yet of the Universe in near-infrared
> light. The faintest and reddest objects in the image are likely the
> oldest galaxies ever identified, having formed between only 600-900
> million years after the Big Bang.
>
> In 2004, Hubble created the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), the
> deepest visible-light image of the Universe, and now, with its brand-
> new camera, Hubble is seeing even farther. This image was taken in the
> same region as the visible HUDF, but is taken at longer wavelengths.
> Hubble's newly installed Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) collects light
> from near-infrared wavelengths and therefore looks even farther back
> towards the Big Bang, because the light from hot young stars in these
> very distant galaxies is stretched out of the ultraviolet and visible
> regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the
> expansion of the Universe. This new deep view also provides insights
> into how galaxies grew in their formative years early in the
> Universe's history.
>
> A boon to astronomers worldwide, the new WFC3 data -- taken by the
> HUDF09 team -- have set a multitude of teams to work, furiously
> searching for the most distant galaxies yet discovered. In just three
> months, twelve scientific papers on these new data have been
> submitted.
>
> This image was taken by the HUDF09 team [1], which has made it
> available for research by astronomers worldwide. The photo was taken
> with the new WFC3/infrared camera on Hubble in late August 2009,
> during a total of four days of pointing for 173 000 seconds of total
> exposure time. Infrared light is invisible to the human eye and
> therefore does not have colours that can be perceived. The
> representation is "natural" in that shorter infrared wavelengths are
> represented as blue and the longer wavelengths as red. The faintest
> objects are about one billion times fainter than the dimmest visible
> objects seen with the naked eye.
>
> These Hubble observations are blazing a trail for Hubble's successor,
> the NASA/ESA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which will look even
> farther into the Universe than Hubble, at infrared wavelengths. The
> launch of JWST is planned for 2014.
>
> http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46049

So what?

Tomorrow and the days after that will be looking further and further.
Given a one year exposure of an absolute black spot the size of that
grain of sand held at arm's length, and the entire FOV will have
become overexposed with a solid mass of distant galactic light (not
even including all the receding FTL stuff).

~ BG

BradGuth
2009-12-10 13:59:59 EST
On Dec 9, 10:40 am, Sir Gilligan Horry <G...@ga7rm5er.com> wrote:
> A couple of stars in that photo too.
> I like to see stars in front of many galaxies
> in those type of photos.
>
> Thanks.
>
> _______________________
>
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 04:37:38 -0800 (PST), HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The new Wide Field Camera 3 aboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope
> >has taken the deepest image yet of the Universe in near-infrared
> >light. The faintest and reddest objects in the image are likely the
> >oldest galaxies ever identified, having formed between only 600-900
> >million years after the Big Bang.
>
> >In 2004, Hubble created the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), the
> >deepest visible-light image of the Universe, and now, with its brand-
> >new camera, Hubble is seeing even farther. This image was taken in the
> >same region as the visible HUDF, but is taken at longer wavelengths.
> >Hubble's newly installed Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) collects light
> >from near-infrared wavelengths and therefore looks even farther back
> >towards the Big Bang, because the light from hot young stars in these
> >very distant galaxies is stretched out of the ultraviolet and visible
> >regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the
> >expansion of the Universe. This new deep view also provides insights
> >into how galaxies grew in their formative years early in the
> >Universe's history.
>
> >A boon to astronomers worldwide, the new WFC3 data -- taken by the
> >HUDF09 team -- have set a multitude of teams to work, furiously
> >searching for the most distant galaxies yet discovered. In just three
> >months, twelve scientific papers on these new data have been
> >submitted.
>
> >This image was taken by the HUDF09 team [1], which has made it
> >available for research by astronomers worldwide. The photo was taken
> >with the new WFC3/infrared camera on Hubble in late August 2009,
> >during a total of four days of pointing for 173 000 seconds of total
> >exposure time. Infrared light is invisible to the human eye and
> >therefore does not have colours that can be perceived. The
> >representation is "natural" in that shorter infrared wavelengths are
> >represented as blue and the longer wavelengths as red. The faintest
> >objects are about one billion times fainter than the dimmest visible
> >objects seen with the naked eye.
>
> >These Hubble observations are blazing a trail for Hubble's successor,
> >the NASA/ESA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which will look even
> >farther into the Universe than Hubble, at infrared wavelengths. The
> >launch of JWST is planned for 2014.
>
> >http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46049

It was entirely computer simulated, whereas not of any original raw
Hubble image was part of what we got to see. You want individual
stars (say 200+ Ms types), is technically not a problem.

~ BG
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron