How can we see galaxies 13 bln light years away?

Question

Since the current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.5 bln years, how can we see galaxies that are 13 bln light-years away (as announced this week (7/10/07))? If the universe started at a single big bang point, our galaxy and the newly discovered ones would have to be moving away from each other at nearly the speed of light. And, if that relative speed weren't mind-boggling enough, wouldn't the severe red shift caused by such rapid relative motion render the visible light from those distant galaxies undetectable? Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to start a science vs religion argument here. I fully believe the current scientific theories about the nature and origin of the universe. I'm just curious as to this apparent paradox.

Answer 1

The red shift from such distant galaxies does have an effect. What would have been ultra-violet radiation when it was emitted by the galaxy has been shifted into the visible range and the light that was originally in the visible range has been shifted into the infrared. So the visible light we see at this point is not what corresponds to visible light originally. This can make certain galaxies dimmer (if they originally didn't have much of an ultraviolet spectrum) or we can use infrared detectors.

One point: the Big Bang was not an explosion from a single point. It literally happens everywhere. It is space itself that is expanding. It is not that the galaxies are moving through space.

Answer 2

You are suffering from a common misconception about the Big Bang. The Big Bang was NOT an explosion that happened somewhere in space, sending galaxies in all directions. It was not an explosion at all.

Space is uniformly filled with galaxies everywhere, and always has been. There are no void places or any center to it. The distances between the galaxies are increasing, however, because space itself is expanding between them. In other words, more real estate is constantly being created. The universe remains uniformly filled with stuff, but the distances between things continue to expand.

So if there's more real estate today, there was less yesterday. In fact, there was a time when there was very little space at all, and because the same amount of matter had to fit in a smaller space, it was hotter.

So the "Big Bang" wasn't a bang at all; it was just the hot state of the early universe. It was hot and dense everywhere, so everywhere you look 13.7 billion light years away you will see that hot dense state (the Cosmic Microwave Background). You will also see galaxies everywhere in every direction, so long as you're not looking so far away that galaxies haven't formed yet, since they too form everywhere in space.

Answer 3

As a matter of fact, it is a very intelligent question. And just to let you know HOW intelligent, there is a space telescope due to be launched in 2010 to answer that question.
See, you're not the only one to ask that question :)
The James Webb space Telescope is specially designed to search for the earliest possible galaxies. In order to do this, it will search only in the infrared spectrum.
Exactly for the reason you stated !!
Things that ancient and so far away would be so far red shifted that their light frequencies would no longer be within the visible spectrum. Hence the infrared search.
The complication is that we register infrared energy as heat! Since the James Webb space telescope is going to be parked in a special orbit and facing away from the sun, it is equipped with special heat reflectors to keep the sun's energy from totally overpowering the tiny heat ( infrared ) signatures of these ancient Galaxies. It will also have some capabilities in the visual spectrum.
OOPS! I just double checked, it seems the launch is now scheduled for 2013.
Take a look at the NASA website and search for the James Webb Telescope. ( sorry, I am not very good with this PC stuff, otherwise I would leave a nice, neat link for you )

Adolph

Answer 4

Hello there...

I am in agreement with you that the numbers seem to be a bit out of whack, and that is why I tend to think that there might have been more than one BANG.

Scientists and Astronomers all seem to agree that the most distant things we can "see" in outer space today with our highly sophisticated optical and radio telescopes are 40 Billion Light Years distant in all directions. At that point our best equipment just seems to be unable to deliver any useful information to us. Maybe in a few years some new software or technical development will extend our vision out to, say, 60 or 70 Billion Light Years. Who knows...

But, given your question and the information in the paragraph above, it is something to ponder on a quiet night when the kids are not raising cain within your house. 40 Billion Light Years in all directions is a really huge distance. When you add in the existance of thousands and thousands of other galaxies besides our own Milky Way Galaxy it starts getting a bit overwhelming. Add to that the fact that each one of those other galaxies might contain a billion stars or more and one can start mumbling in the dark with good cause.

Someone asked in here the other day if there were more stars or more planets... I had to laugh. You see, each of those billions of stars has the possibility of having from 0 to 10 (or more) planets with their own moons orbiting them. So my answer to the gentleman was that there were certainly more planets than stars, we just cannot see them all because of the brilliance of the stars in question. It is like looking into the headlights of an approaching automobile...cannot see anything but the bright headlights shining in your eyes.

Regards,
Zah

Answer 5

I think the problem in your logic is that you are assuming that the galaxy is moving at the speed of light. I don't think this is the case. If you would think about it if the galxay was moving at the same speed as light coming to it then the light would never get to the galaxy (i.e. two cars traveling at 60 mph start at 1000 feet apart and going in the same direction. If speed is constant 5 miles down the road they would still be 1000 feet apart). Basically if the two galaxy were moving away from each other at the speed of light the relative distance between them would be 2c and thus anything traveling at c would never catch up to one or the other and in fact would only serve to get rather away from both as time goes on. It would look like the gun and the bear both fleeing from the bullet at twice the speed. It would look like the bullet was standing still almost. The sheer knowledge that we can see distant stars and galaxy is indication of either the celestial bodies are not traveling at c or they are moving towards each other.

Answer 6

Very in-depth question...

However, if every galaxy is moving at the same speed, as long as it's in a similar direction, then the red-shift factor shouldn't matter so much. As for seeing the galaxies however, it depends what state you want to see the universe in. If you want to see it being created, you'd have to get a sufficient distance from the core of the universe and use lots of very advanced optical equipment to see it.

As for seeing it say...6.75 billion years into it's life, you'd have to again get far away enough from said galaxy and use the same optical equipment. To see a galaxy as it is today though...you'd have to either go to the universe, or wait a while and intercept the light at the right point.

Answer 7

all this is just big nonsense. i'm not a supporter of the God theory, but when scientists start making claims about the age of the universe, put decimal places in their approximations, it's just annoying. the big bang theory is a tremendous theory, but the scientific community is just pushing it as a fact. they refuse to allow for other possibilities. science has become just another religion of people with dogmatic beliefs and intolerant rhetoric.

Answer 8

consistent with possibility to coach how a ways the guidelines of physics stick to around the universe. consistent with possibility to coach that no rely how lots guy learns approximately his universe he can by no ability gain comprehensive understanding approximately it. to coach how genuine the assertion in job 9: 9-10 is " 9Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. 10Which doeth great things previous looking out; yea, and wonders without quantity. God is the final secret of all. greater so than this actual universe. if it is so this is not any ask your self God needs us to settle for him by ability of religion.

Answer 9

They use a process they call "lensing" in which they use other closer galaxies which bend the light from the distant one to "lens" or, if you will, refract the light from the distant galaxies.

As for the estimates, it is highly theortical and you can expect in 200 years or so for them to change their minds.

They base this size on the supposition that stars formed in 500 million or so years. It could be sooner it could be later. We also can't be sure at what speeds these galaxies are travelling.

First thing out of the singularity was gamma or cosmic rays travellying at the speed of light and then probably photos of light itself.

We have absolutely no idea how long it took larger particle mass (electrons, protons) to be freed and escape.

We can assume further out galaxies travel faster than our own, but we have no basis for actually knowing.

Some estimate the diameter of the universe to be as big as 100 billion light years. the 13.2 billion is based on what we "think" are the furthest objects +500 million for the gamma rays beyond them. You end up with a radius of 13.7

You also have to "guess" where the center or point of origin is.

This 13.7 figure is from us, basically.

How far are we from the center or point of origin.

Where is the center.

You have, essentially, an almost perfect sphere of emitted gamma rays moving outward in all directions uniformly at the speed of light forming an event horizon that is, plus or minus one light second equal at the outer edge.

In a fusion burst it would be hard to imagine gamma rays lagging back more than 1 second from the first emissions.

We can understand this from the EMP of fission bombs and fusion bombs.

We can then assume from the things like the Ring Nebula that larger particle mass also goes out in this manner but it can lag back, as the ring nebula is more of an oval than a ring.

What we can't assume is that the singularity rotated on its axis. We no basis for that assumption.

IF, however, it did rotate on an axis, then we can make some general assumptions that it was thicker at the equator than at the poles, which can account for an oval ring or sphere.

Since we can see the ring nebula we can easily assume its shape came as a possible result of a rotating body that exploded.

So in drawing the shape of the universe we can have two overlapping images. One of a universe that is close to or almost circular in shape. Or one that is slightly irregular do to an irrigular shape or rotational shape of the singularity.

In any even the GAMMA ray discharge has to occur within 1 second or less of time uniformly.

THEN heavy mass exits based on gravity wells that still exist.

But in a fusion explosion we can, once again using the H Bomb as a model, see that rings of smoke and the mushroom cloud is somewhat uniformed in shape.

At this point there are so many views as to how things developed that the modling can no longer be related to anything.

I tend, for example, to favor the concept that pieces of the singularity were thrown out intact. This could explain black holes if smaller chunks of ultra dense mass went out like pellets from a shot gun.

My own model on this is popcorn. You always have a few unpopped corns at the bottom of the pan or bag.

Who says the entire singlarity fused atomically.

The fusion explosions pushes outward and starts a chain reaction, but who is to say that not all atoms joined in the game.

Who is to say the reaction was 100%. There is always some waist, always residue in reactions.

Particles of heavy mass (singularity bits) can easily account for the attraction of smaller mass to the surface. This could be the core of planets and stars.

It could be what caused free hydrogen to accumulate.

It can also explain why galaxies formed. I mean if things were moving out in equal directions then why didn't the universe form as one huge globular cluster moving outward.

Individaul stars simply travelling outward.

Why did they become "galactic systems" rotating and contracting towards a central core.

Dense matter can explain this.

Dense matter in larger sizes can also explain black holes.

A singularity has to start forming somewhere, why not with pieces of it's own kind that still exist.

How else would the universe fall back upon itself.

So, somewhere out there is a fairly large chunk of the singularity still in the original form and it's sucking in mass nearby and as it sucks in mass it's graviy well increase and then it is capable of suckinig mass orginally beyond the event horizon of gravity.

As the universe is expading in all directions one or more black holes is sucking in mass in pockets of the universe and distorting the fabric of space.

Eventually so much mass accumulates that these distant black holes start to interact with each other and fall together.

As this gravity well increases and the fabric of space warps, it eventually starts to deflect the trajectory of the Gamma Rays at the edge of the universe and they start to parabol and fall back towards the gravity well.

As gravity in pockets of the universe increases to near light speed it would have a far reaching effect and deflect light and other radiation off axis. When the gravity well equals light speed it would draw the outer event horizon of the universe back to the well and a new singularity would form.

Of course that's just my view. I could be wrong.

Answer 10

...maybe they are closer, just the light is arriving on a sinuous way..