51–60 of 252 posts
>>> Like this one, it’s not understood how it can exist. I don't like that phrase. It suggests the possibility that this galaxy might not exist, that this could be observational error. I think it does exist. We understand exactly how it exists because we can observe it existing. The more accurate phrasing might be "it's not understood how it could have evolved so quickly".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, 13 billion years is the age of the universe. The observable universe is a sphere with a diameter of ~93 billion light years (And is likely to only be a subset of the entire universe).
How can we observe things over 40 billion light years away if they've only been around to emit light for 13 billion years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the same technique, but there are similar architectures that could be implemented far sooner. Earth's atmosphere as a refractive telescope: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-could-be-a-...
Not nearly as powerful, though.
If galaxies and stars at the other “end” formed out of matter resulting from the big bang, just as the matter we are made of, how did we get here at the same time that that matter got there?
Is it because speeds faster than light are possible, and around the big bang all matter was spread near instantly at that speed? I don't understand how matter of the same “kind” was spread throughout the universe all at the same time without traveling at speeds greater than the speed of light. Because if we watch the ”opposite” direction from where the big bang occurred we don't really observe matter in a state closer to its original state, or parts of the universe in radically different states - which should result from that matter traveling further than the matter we are made of, as for us to now catchup with light that is “younger” than that towards the core of the universe. Am i missing something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a reference to Douglas Adams' absurdist Sci Fi series, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," which is amazing and I recommend everyone read! https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13.The_Ultimate_Hitchhik... (The first book is "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," there are 5 books, one of which is titled "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe")
Many people don't know that a radio series preceded the books. I find that the funniest version, personally.
Which, as you will already know but others may not, the brilliant TV series was adapted from (not the books):
(Iconic music: Journey of the Sorcerer by The Eagles.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoa, that's crazy precise. They got it down to the tens of thousands? If so, seems like they should write "13.700 billion" for the first part. I'm a little suspicious of this number as-is. Looking for a source for those numbers, I found this[0]: > While previous estimates were 13.7 billion years old, give or take 130,000 years, new predictions hone in with more precision- at around 13.77 billion years, plus or minus…
So NASA said "plus or minus 130,000 years" when they were actually off by about 70 million years?
>>> Like this one, it’s not understood how it can exist. I don't like that phrase. It suggests the possibility that this galaxy might not exist, that this could be observational error. I think it does exist. We understand exactly how it exists because we can observe it existing. The more accurate phrasing might be "it's not understood how it could have evolved so quickly".
Remember not long ago when neutrinos were thought to have been observed moving faster than the speed of light? Cold fusion?
Before people jump on the idea of re-evaluating Einstein's theories, it's always good to get more people looking at the data, independently verifying it, thinking about it. In a few months, it's likely that this blip will disappear like most others.
All right hackernews. Genuine question, not sure where else to ask. If galaxies and stars at the other “end” formed out of matter resulting from the big bang, just as the matter we are made of, how did we get here at the same time that that matter got there? Is it because speeds faster than light are possible, and around the big bang all matter was spread near instantly at that speed? I don't understand how matter of…
On the traditional balloon model, the surface of the balloon represents space itself. Those dots on the surface of an expanding balloon are not moving relative to space (the surface of the balloon), and so despite the distance increasing between us, the rate of increase of that distance is not bound by the speed of light, which only limits passage through spacetime.
The wikipedia page on redshift describes well how redshift applies to objects which are in space that is expanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space
Nice gravitational lens observation! We're hoping to use the same technique with the Sun to observe exoplanets by launching a fleet of small satellites to 547 AU (80 billion km / ~3 light days). The craft would sample the distorted Einstein ring around our Sun from that vantage point, then combine and reconstruct an image of the disk of an Earth-like exoplanet up to 100 light-years beyond, at a resolution of 25 kilom…
> it’d still take 25 to 30 years for them to reach a vantage point .... > mission designers would have to pick carefully because they could observe only a single target It will take 30 years to get in position but then we can only look at one target? While it sounds very neat, I'd rather fund something we can use more than once, and sooner.