Which is amazing as well, the universe can be much bigger than we will ever be able to see. But when the Hubble did it’s deep field though weren’t the galaxies seen early galaxies? I mean they are of course because of the distance, but weren’t they structurally early galaxies (larger stars etc)? To me seeing the early galaxies would mean that we are approaching some sort of boundary of the universe (it would be much further out but still ) because we are seeing the first galaxies.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Kentucker

Cincinnati, KY

Member since Apr 2013

19351 posts

Posted on 1/5/18 at 8:20 pm to DavidTheGnome

Below is the oldest galaxy Hubble has ever seen. It dates to just 400 million years after the BB. That means it's now almost 13.4 billion years old. It looks young and fresh because we're seeing it at a young age. It may not even exist now.

quote:
The remote galaxy GN-z11, shown in the inset, existed only 400 million years after the Big Bang when the universe was only 3 percent of its current age. It belongs to the first generation of galaxies in the universe, and its discovery provides new insights into the early universe. This is the first time that the distance of an object so far away has been measured from its spectrum, which makes the measurement extremely reliable.

GN-z11 is actually ablaze with bright young blue stars, but these look red in this image because its light was stretched to longer, redder wavelengths by the expansion of the universe.

quote:
To me seeing the early galaxies would mean that we are approaching some sort of boundary of the universe (it would be much further out but still ) because we are seeing the first galaxies.

That boundary should logically be the BB if we're on the right path of discovery, since our view of Galaxy GN-z11 is in that direction of time.

2 ...

Report Post

Off-Topic Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board