Interferometer Spots Galaxy at 40M Lightyears 60
techno-vampire writes "JPL announces that a pair of telescopes used as an optical interferometer have detected a galaxy 40 million light years away, smashing the previous record of 3,000 light years. This feat, using infrared, has given us a far more detailed look into the center of a galaxy, and opened up a whole new field of research."
Hubble Deep Field Images? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hubble Deep Field Images? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, that explains.
Re:Hubble Deep Field Images? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hubble Deep Field Images? (Score:3, Informative)
Read article, interferometer != telescope (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Read article, interferometer != telescope (Score:3, Interesting)
40 million light years? (Score:2)
Re:40 million light years? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:40 million light years? (Score:2)
heh!
The Devil's in the DETAILS (Score:4, Insightful)
"NGC 4151 is 40 million light years from Earth, far beyond the most distant object previously detected by this type of telescope system, which was about 3,000 light years from Earth."
"this type of telescope system"
They are refering SPECIFICALLY to the technique used to image this. NOT 'most distant object imaged'.
Re:The Devil's in the DETAILS (Score:1)
Re:how fast (Score:2)
You can get there with a standard warp drive, or even impulse for that matter. It would just take a very long time. In fact, using transwarp could take a long time too. Consider the mechanics of transwarp.
Transwarp conduits seem to vary in speed greatly. In TNG episode "Decsent" the Enterprise entered a pre-layed Borg transwarp conduit and covered 65 lightyears in about nine seconds, a speed of around 200,000,000 c, or 8.125 lightyears per second(!). At that s
Re:how fast (Score:2)
So with a prelayed conduit that'd be just under 2 months and making a new conduit it would be 21.1 years of transwarp. Sorry about that. Well I guess if we ever invent the technology it isn't so unrealistic after all, is it?
Re:how fast (Score:1)
Depending on what is called for in the script
Re:how fast (Score:2)
NERD POWER (Score:2)
So you think you were traveling for 2 weeks, but everyone else thinks your trip took 1 week. Something like that.
I always thought that explanation was lame, personally, and it did come from "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise," which really is tre
Re:NERD POWER (Score:2)
Re:NERD POWER (Score:1)
Re:NERD POWER (Score:2)
If that's not enough scientific nonsense for you, guess what? We're evolving into salamanders. Pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re:so... (Score:1)
A more accurate representation is that space is expanding, thus every point it getting further from every other. So wherever you are everything seems to be moving away from you. . .
I'd give more detail, but it's 8pm, on a friday night, and I'm still at work. It's time to be gone.
Even more confusing... (Score:2)
Re:so... (Score:2, Informative)
Imagine a balloon. Now, imagine dots on the outer surface of the balloon that represent galaxies and other matter. These objects exist on the two-dimensional plane that is the outer surface. It is curved slightly in three dimensions, but from the point of view of the dots, they don't notice this (they can't percieve this third dimension).
Now, imagine if I blew the balloon up. The dots move aw
Re:so... (Score:1)
When you bake a raisin bread and it rises, all the raisins get farther apart from each other. Each raisin sees all the other raisins receeding from it.
Re:so... (Score:1)
Yes, but a loaf of bread has a definite center. The surface of a balloon doesn't. Ignoring discontinuity at the neck of the balloon, every spot on the balloon's surface has equal claim to be the center, which makes it a better analogy in this case.
In the real Universe of course, I'm the center. :-)
Re:so... (Score:1)
This does not hold true for this universe (Score:2)
Not far from us, it turns out. The galaxies in our universe are arranged, loosely, in concentric shells. The center about which these shells are con happens to be not far outside our own galaxy.
Lots of scientists pooh-pooh the idea, not because they've examined the data but because they're allergic to the philosophical implications of this. A few others have made genuine attempts to examine and refute the data, so far withou
Re:This does not hold true for this universe (Score:1)
Re:This does not hold true for this universe (Score:2)
Links to concentric galaxy stuff (Score:2)
One of the things he noticed was that galaxies happen in statistically significant concentric shells, at least according to the redshifts. One of the less heated discussions I've seen of the consequences is at the Universi [ua.edu]
Re:Links to concentric galaxy stuff (Score:2)
Unfortunately, redshift is hard to imply... (Score:2)
Like I said, many scientists object to it from their armchairs (and others too, QED) more because they're uncomfortable with where it might take them than by experimenting themselves or because they've found positive contradictions. Vague handwaving appeals to authority like the HubbleSite wording are almost a hallmark of this approach.
Re:Unfortunately, redshift is hard to imply... (Score:2)
Yeah, exactly, so why did you supply the link to the photos of the Arp collection of peculiar galaxies? You originally were arguing about concentric shells of galaxies. That's what I'm curious about, and because you are too reticent to post an appropriate link, I still know nothing about this theory.
And the hubblesite quotes were taken from a page [stsci.edu] quite relevant to the Arp galaxies. The famous Markarian 205 photos showing a purported link between a
I supplied the link to the *discussion* (Score:2)
Also, there is nothing to stop Markarian 205's quasar from being behind the "host" galaxy relative to us, since we are working in 3D here. The unsolved question is how far behind it is. It doesn't make much weight in the argument either way, but if you could show that every case was such an overlay and that there were few cases of near-UV absorption for visually isolated quasars you'd have
Re:I supplied the link to the *discussion* (Score:2)
No. NGC 4319 has been disrupted by gravitational forces from something massive, as evidenced by the wide flung arms and the dust lanes. These are roughly perpendicular to our line of sight, meaning the galaxy and the massive object are also in a plane perpendicular to our line of sight. Many members of your wacky little group thinks it's the Seyfert, Markarian 205,
My goodness, aren't we feeling pompous today? (-: (Score:2)
Yes, and what does it look like from the side? You've got to admit than an exactly-planar strike is extremely unlikely - unless Arp's theories on the issue are in essence correct (obviously not a palatable outcome for you).
Why? A few thousand or tens of thousands of light-years may not make
truce (Score:2)
Camp 1: Support the work of William Tifft in '70s, and subsequent work of Napier and Guthrie in '97 showing quantized redshifts, used as proof of geocentric or galactocentric universe, with concentric shells of galaxies around us or our galaxy. Tifft's early work
Good finish. (Score:2)
But meanwhile, please accept a "+1, Reasonable" moderation for your response. (-:
Re:so... (Score:1)
Is the earth further away from the sun than it used to be? So the dot on the ballon that represents the Earth and the dot for the sun are further apart?
Re:so... (Score:1)
From things I've read, everything in the universe seems to be moving away from something and expanding. So, where is the "center", what's in it?
There is no center. Space is either infinite (open universe) or finite (closed universe). If space is infinite, then there is no center because there is no boundary. On the other hand, if space is finite, then the curvature of space means that the universe eventually closes back on itself at some unimaginably distant distance.
In one case it's like asking "
Re:so... (Score:1)
Here's my breakdown:
The universe was born around 15 billion years ago and it's been expanding ever since. Whether it continues to expand depends on the amount of matter in the universe. If there is not enough matter (i.e. not enough gravity), the univer
Re:so... (Score:1)
the definition of open and closed universe is not refering to a boundry, or infinite space. [snip] If there is not enough matter (i.e. not enough gravity), the universe will continue expanding at an accelerated rate [snip] The third option, you didn't mention, is where scientists think we are now....a 'flat' universe.
OK, I was speaking imprecisely. You're partly correct. A closed universe is often used to mean a universe that will eventually collapse upon itself.
In all cases, there is (at any m
Re:bull (Score:1)
-Quote thanks to NASA
The closest galaxy is over25 times farther away than 3,000 light years.
Just wait for another 10 years (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to see an array of cheap telescopes stationed at the LaGrangian points to do interferometry at any wavelength. Gravity wave detection could also be included in the mix. There would be no need for elaborate vibration damping and not being limited to the simple L shape that current ground based gravity detectors use, we would be able to triangulate gravity wave disturbances in 3 dimensions!
Re: Just wait for another 10 years (Score:1)
Re:Just wait for another 10 years (Score:2)
Re:Just wait for another 10 years (Score:2)
Actually, the chances that we can have "actual visualization of the Schwartzchild radius" is quite small, since most black holes will have quite high rotation and strong magnetic fields. Schwartzchild black holes are not likely to be formed in nature. We will probably get to image black holes described by Kerr's equations. (Rapidly Rotating) If these have an event horizon, it is likely an oblate ellipsoid.
?!? That ain't right. (Score:2, Insightful)
that 3,000 light year number is at least a few orders of
magnitude off. WTF?
Re:?!? That ain't right. (Score:2)
Or maybe we're just hosting some really small gallaxies inside our own....
Or maybe it's a case for a fractal universe...
or maybe I just need to go to bed (1am here)
Re:It's a typo: 3 million to 40 million (Score:2)
The closest galaxy is (quote taken from here [nasa.gov]):
Re:It's a typo: 3 million to 40 million (Score:2)