The Hubble Ultra Deep Field, or HUDF, is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 3, 2003 through January 16, 2004. It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken in visible light, looking back in time more than 13 billion years. The HUDF contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. The patch of sky in which the galaxies reside (just one-tenth the diameter of the full moon as viewed from Earth) was chosen because it had a low density of bright stars in the near-field. Although most of the targets visible in the Hubble image can also be seen at infrared wavelengths by ground-based telescopes, Hubble is the only instrument which can make observations of these distant targets at visible wavelengths. Located southwest of Orion in the Southern-Hemisphere constellation Fornax (...), the image covers 36.7 square arcminutes. This is smaller than a 1 mm by 1 mm square of paper held 1 meter away, and equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky.
In total, the image required 800 exposures taken over the course of 400 Hubble orbits around Earth. The total amount of exposure time was 11.3 days for the ACS and 4.5 days for the NICMOS.
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe has a finite age, so we might expect very distant (and hence very young) galaxies to look different from the typical older galaxies we see today. This is indeed seen in the HUDF, although some argue that the difference is partly a result of the unusual wavelength used for the HUDF (corresponding to ultraviolet light from the rest-frame of the most distant galaxies). The Hubble Ultra Deep Field also shows more evidence for galaxy formation and merging than in local studies, as expected for the early universe.
[ Regarding a particularly redshifted galaxy: ] The galaxy is believed to be about as far away as the most distant galaxies and quasars now known. The light reaching us today began its journey when the universe was only about 800 million years old.
(...)The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.(...)
What that basically means is that this picture is, in its entirety, about 50 times smaller than the apparent surface of the Moon as seen from the Earth; imagine a 1x1 mm square at a distance of your outstretched hand. Fifty times smaller! In just one tiny picture, the observable universe contains well over 10.000 wildly different galaxies. Entire galaxies, many many times bigger than our own. Each of those galaxies contains millions upon millions of stars, and those stars must have innumerable planets orbiting them by now. And quite probably, on one of those planets, a sentient being has constructed a device that can peer deeper into space than ever before, and the device shows him ten thousands galaxies, like sand on the beach. Somewhere deep in the background, some 13 billion light years away, he sees the reddest, oldest galaxy he has ever seen. Yet it is not our own galaxy, for we are forever out of his reach by laws of nature alone; we are many many billions of light years behind that veil of darkness, beyond the final curtain of time and space itself, where no telescope of his ever could and never will see.
On January 28 2008 11:42 micronesia wrote: I hate to be pessimistic, but how does this image affect history? This is coming from a man of science. Edit: Still an awesome accomplishment though; also puts things in perspective some more.
Maybe because it proves that while we grope in the darkness of our ignorance we can, and have, seen a little light, giving us thus a glimmer of hope, which though may not sound like much for the pragmatic mind, is of dire importance for us and our future; after all what are we without knowledge and hope?
- it's threads like this one, that keep me coming back to the general forum, thanks op.
Much credit to the OP; I am a huge fan of astronomy and totally agree with the title of this thread.
The Hubble Deep Fields are absolutely stunning, and the OP explained exactly why. We are such an infinitesimal speck in the Universe, constrained by time and space from ever beholding its full glory.
The Universe is so beautiful and awe-inspiring...
[edit] And thanks for the jpg links, it is now wallpapered :D
On January 28 2008 14:33 TheOvermind77 wrote: Much credit to the OP; I am a huge fan of astronomy and totally agree with the title of this thread.
The Hubble Deep Fields are absolutely stunning, and the OP explained exactly why. We are such an infinitesimal speck in the Universe, constrained by time and space from ever beholding its full glory.
The Universe is so beautiful and awe-inspiring...
though...this image might as well be some generic wallpaper. i dont see how it conveys any sense of significance when the scope of this isn't tangible...maybe when something comes out of this picture in a few hundred years, then maybe. if "significance" is how infinitesimal the earth is, just glancing through a telescope seems much cooler?
On January 28 2008 14:33 TheOvermind77 wrote: Much credit to the OP; I am a huge fan of astronomy and totally agree with the title of this thread.
The Hubble Deep Fields are absolutely stunning, and the OP explained exactly why. We are such an infinitesimal speck in the Universe, constrained by time and space from ever beholding its full glory.
The Universe is so beautiful and awe-inspiring...
though...this image might as well be some generic wallpaper. i dont see how it conveys any sense of significance when the scope of this isn't tangible...maybe when something comes out of this picture in a few hundred years, then maybe. if "significance" is how infinitesimal the earth is, just glancing through a telescope seems much cooler?
interesting thread title though.
The light - the images of galaxies in this image - is from right after the Big Bang in the early stages of the Universe. This image is the farthest back in time the human race has ever seen at a distance that is staggering! The fact that the picture holds a large number of galaxies even at such a distance (and time) shows us that we are so small and should make you pause and wonder if there are others, billions of years from now, who will be peering back into time to gaze at the light left from our single galaxy; the same galaxy that held a solar system with a special planet that harbored life that was intelligent enough to peer back into the depths of the Universe and recognize its beauty and, in consequence, its place.
I think it lets us know who we are, where we came from, what will happen to us.
On January 28 2008 11:42 micronesia wrote: I hate to be pessimistic, but how does this image affect history? This is coming from a man of science. Edit: Still an awesome accomplishment though; also puts things in perspective some more.
Maybe because it proves that while we grope in the darkness of our ignorance we can, and have, seen a little light, giving us thus a glimmer of hope, which though may not sound like much for the pragmatic mind, is of dire importance for us and our future; after all what are we without knowledge and hope?
I think that sounds wonderful, but I don't see how it is going to influence history. I think our differences right now are more semantic than substantive.
Human science has come a long way in a very short time. 500 years ago, we were the center of the universe built specially for us. Now we are nothing more than an insignificant speck in a universe that is bigger than we could have ever imagined, less than a raindrop in the storm or a speck of sand on the beach. What does that mean for us as men? It seems so easy to yield to nihilism, but I find that sticking to the things that make us human and special give us even greater meaning, in the light of our small physical stature in comparison to nature's grandeur.
and then you write about how huge the universe is and how insignificant this makes humans.
based on this.. Im gonna bet theres alien life forms millions of times more advanced then us that have "images" that are far far far more important then a pretty picture of space.
On January 28 2008 11:42 micronesia wrote: I hate to be pessimistic, but how does this image affect history? This is coming from a man of science. Edit: Still an awesome accomplishment though; also puts things in perspective some more.
Maybe because it proves that while we grope in the darkness of our ignorance we can, and have, seen a little light, giving us thus a glimmer of hope, which though may not sound like much for the pragmatic mind, is of dire importance for us and our future; after all what are we without knowledge and hope?
- it's threads like this one, that keep me coming back to the general forum, thanks op.
In other words, it's a bunch of pretty stars. We spent millions of dollars on the Hubble telescope, to get pretty pictures of stars, which we could have used to feed starving families.
On January 28 2008 11:42 micronesia wrote: I hate to be pessimistic, but how does this image affect history? This is coming from a man of science. Edit: Still an awesome accomplishment though; also puts things in perspective some more.
Maybe because it proves that while we grope in the darkness of our ignorance we can, and have, seen a little light, giving us thus a glimmer of hope, which though may not sound like much for the pragmatic mind, is of dire importance for us and our future; after all what are we without knowledge and hope?
- it's threads like this one, that keep me coming back to the general forum, thanks op.
In other words, it's a bunch of pretty stars. We spent millions of dollars on the Hubble telescope, to get pretty pictures of stars, which we could have used to feed starving families.
This is a pretty narrow view of why technological progression is important. You really don't understand why it's important to explore and develop and create new things? That developing a telescope like Hubble is much more important and serves greater purposes than simply to "get pretty pictures of stars?"
Magnificent! Man, too bad science hasn't allowed us to see closeup views of faraway planets, the terrain, atmosphere, etc..that would be really really awesome.
This image totally reminds me of the starmap that was in Star Control 2, except everything is much more dense
Nice photo but definitely not even close to 'most important image in history', though I don't know how I'd grade photos for that ranking or what would be #1. Any photo that won the pulitzer prize is more important than this one, though.
I don't think you can say this is even an important image in history, as it hasn't changed or reached many people, though you can argue it should (and that is an argument to be had).
If you are aware of the huge gap between what people could understand about the evolutionary history of life on Earth, you should probably add to that, even moreso, how few people acknowledge basic facts available in Astronomy. It's even easier to see people say Big Bang is "just a theory" than to see people say that about Evolution.
Indeed a beautiful picture! Nice write up as well for that matter.
As for most important picture I have another candidate by space telescope COBE showing the fluctuation in the cosmological background. Basically it is a picture of the universe a tiny fraction of a second after big bang.
I was assigned to write a popular science article on it a year ago, when some guys were awarded the Nobel price for it. I'll post it ẃhen I get home from work in a few hours. Possibly in a new thread.
Yes, I have read quite a lot about the cosmic background radiation. It's funny how everything is interconnected once you spend some time on it, for example the tiny fluctuations in that radiation show the temperature fluctuations in space, for example the major difference between hot stars and the cold nothingness of space, and it also indirectly proves the big bang theory by showing the initial conditions short after the symmetry break, when tiny areas of density fluctuations rapidly expanded, and which was of major importance for the latter formation of gas clouds which in turn produced stars; i.e., if the density was to remain uniform across the universe, nothing at all could have emerged. Then there's some major stuff to talk about, like for example the reason the universe is so cold, and the direct implications this has for the development of life.
On January 29 2008 01:40 alpskomleko wrote: Yes, I have read quite a lot about the cosmic background radiation. It's funny how everything is interconnected once you spend some time on it, for example the tiny fluctuations in that radiation show the temperature fluctuations in space, for example the major difference between hot stars and the cold nothingness of space, and it also indirectly proves the big bang theory by showing the initial conditions short after the symmetry break, when tiny areas of density fluctuations rapidly expanded, and which was of major importance for the latter formation of gas clouds which in turn produced stars; i.e., if the density was to remain uniform across the universe, nothing at all could have emerged. Then there's some major stuff to talk about, like for example the reason the universe is so cold, and the direct implications this has for the development of life.
I have to agree with Luddite's position: we should take care of ourselves here on Earth before we go spending fortunes to look into space. Do not mistakenly think this means that people like myself do not appreciate what this image means, or that we do not appreciate the vastness of the universe.
It simply means that if I were starving, I would feel very bad that billions of dollars were being spent on space equipment and things of that nature. The sense of injustice would be profound.
The situation is so much more sad when I consider how incredibly powerful and capable humans are. We can put people on the moon if we want to. We can leave the Earth. We can fly around in giant metal machines. We can create nuclear explosions. We can do so much. And yet we choose not to address poverty, inequality, and widespread injustice.
This isn't saying that people who support research like what the hubble is involved in are callous or cruel. It's just saying that we ought to collectively consider our values. Why should we put space exploration before the wellbeing of life on Earth? Afterall, Earth is where we live, and the people of Earth are our brothers and sisters. Space isn't going anywhere.
People that say 'Why are we investing in studying space when we could be feeding the poor?', I'm sorry that I have to be the one that tells you this but that just isn't the way the world works. Spending $100 less on space exploration will not put $100 worth of food into the bellies of starving people, the world economy is not a zero sum game.
Also, I would like to point out that technologies that have come out of space exploration, such as advances in storing food for long periods of time in potentially hostile environments, have made a lot of people a lot better off than they would otherwise be.
Don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of feeding people, but saying technology spending is standing in the way of caring for our poor only shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
On January 29 2008 04:26 nA.Inky wrote: I have to agree with Luddite's position: we should take care of ourselves here on Earth before we go spending fortunes to look into space. Do not mistakenly think this means that people like myself do not appreciate what this image means, or that we do not appreciate the vastness of the universe.
It simply means that if I were starving, I would feel very bad that billions of dollars were being spent on space equipment and things of that nature. The sense of injustice would be profound.
The situation is so much more sad when I consider how incredibly powerful and capable humans are. We can put people on the moon if we want to. We can leave the Earth. We can fly around in giant metal machines. We can create nuclear explosions. We can do so much. And yet we choose not to address poverty, inequality, and widespread injustice.
This isn't saying that people who support research like what the hubble is involved in are callous or cruel. It's just saying that we ought to collectively consider our values. Why should we put space exploration before the wellbeing of life on Earth? Afterall, Earth is where we live, and the people of Earth are our brothers and sisters. Space isn't going anywhere.
Soooo many technological advances have come from NASA and space exploration!
Whatever amount of carrots you throw in the pen every day, the rabbits are just going to breed until they're starving again.
Charity is for people having temporary hard times as a way to put them back on their feet, or for ruined people as a way to make them more comfortable until they die, not for supporting entire dysfunctional societies.
On January 29 2008 01:40 alpskomleko wrote: Yes, I have read quite a lot about the cosmic background radiation. It's funny how everything is interconnected once you spend some time on it, for example the tiny fluctuations in that radiation show the temperature fluctuations in space, for example the major difference between hot stars and the cold nothingness of space, and it also indirectly proves the big bang theory by showing the initial conditions short after the symmetry break, when tiny areas of density fluctuations rapidly expanded, and which was of major importance for the latter formation of gas clouds which in turn produced stars; i.e., if the density was to remain uniform across the universe, nothing at all could have emerged. Then there's some major stuff to talk about, like for example the reason the universe is so cold, and the direct implications this has for the development of life.
lol, yeah what he said.
If you do not understand that, then maybe the popular science article I wrote a year ago could help you. Point was to make it understandable by everyone so please dont feel too stupid to read it. And if you dont find something clear, it is my fault for failing to explain it. I also know that the ending sucks. It was an "X number of word" assignments, and I was finishing it late night before deadline, so....
Due to the limited speed of light, looking far out into space means looking back in time. The farther you look, the longer back in time you will see. In 1989 the COBE satellite was launched in orbit around the earth, bringing a telescope designed to look as far away as possible. Beyond the last galaxy, before the first stars were born, they saw the glowing dust of the big bang. For this John C. Mather and George F. Smoot were awarded the 2006 Nobel prise in physics.
It started in the beginning of the 20:th century when Hubble found that distant galaxies all moved away from us. Backtracing the motion of the galaxies he saw that about 14 billion years ago, all matter was concentrated in a very small volume and rapidly moving away from each other. This observation gave rise to the big bang theory, that the universe exploded into existence from a single point.
\subsection*{Decoupling: When the universe turned transparent} Looking back in time with the COBE telescope we will eventually arrive at the forming of the first stars and galaxies. Before that the universe contained only hydrogen gas, the main ingredient of stars. But hydrogen is a transparent gas, COBE will see through it, so we can look even further back in time. As we continue back in time the universe grows hotter and hotter, making the hydrogen atoms move faster and colide more violently. A hydrogen atom consists of a proton in the nucleus and an electron orbiting around it, but when the gas gets hot enough, around 3000 degrees Celsius, the electron will be knocked away. At higher temperatures the electron and proton will not orbit each other in pairs, but rather be a mess of protons and electrons bouncing around each on it's own. This is called a plasma, and it is not transparent as the free electrons will absorb any light passing through. So continuing back in time the hydrogen gas will eventually be hot enough to form a plasma. This transition is called the decoupling. That is how far back in time we can see. Beyond the last star, and behind the transparent hydrogen gas, we will see a 3000 degrees hot plasma of protons and electrons.
\subsection*{Blackbody radiation} How does a 3000 degrees hot proton-electron plasma look? The answer is simple: it glows. In fact, everything glows when it gets hot. A spot on a stove glows deep red if you leave it on, iron glows yellow when heated. Even the white light of the sun comes from the fact that the surface is 6000 degrees hot. This is called blackbody radiation. So this plasma glowed yellow, the color determined completely by its temperature. From this, one would expect the night sky to be glowing yellow, not black, but the expansion of the universe solves this inconsistency. Even though the 14 billion years old light emitted from the plasma has travelled right through the universe, it still has been subject to changes in the space-time fabric itself. Since the decoupling of the universe, the space itself has expanded to many times its own size and the traveling light from the plasma has expanded with it. Now, light that expands gets less intense, actually changing color towards red. So the yellow light from the plasma will have changed since emitted: first it turned red, and then, as the universe continued to expand the light went into infrared and then continued away from visible light. Today, after 14 billion years, we can expect the glow to be far into the microwave spectrum, corresponding to a much colder blackbody. Luckily we can still recognize it as blackbody radiation from the distribution of colors, only that it will seem to be colder than it was then.
What COBE measured was just this. The background of the universe seems to be a black body of the temperature 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, that is around -270 degrees Celsius. This light is in the microwave region of the spectrum, far from visible light, which is why this is called the cosmological microwave background. The distribution of the colors was exactly the one predicted, confirming the big bang model. This, on its own, was a great success, but there was more.
\begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics{cobe} % name of the file - without extension \caption{The prediction of the theory (line) were confirmed by the COBE experiment (dots) with a very convincing accuracy.} \end{figure}
\subsection*{A problem with communication} According to the very simplest big bang model where the universe expands at constant speed in the early universe, the different parts of the universe would have moved away from each other so fast that they did not have time to communicate. Not even using light, the fastest possible way of communicating, could they exchange information. So for us today, looking in opposite directions, we will see two parts of the universe that have never had the chance to communicate. But then, how come that they look almost the same? Actually, in this simple model, there is no good reason why they should be even similar! And this is a sign that the model should be corrected.
The proposed explanation was the following. In the very early universe, long before the decoupling era when the universe became transparent, the universe expanded at a more moderate speed. This would allow different parts of the universe to communicate, and preassure and temperature would have time to even out. After that, the universe entered a brief but extremely fast expansion phase, blowing up to $10^{30}$ times its own size in about $10^{-31}$ seconds! This phase is called the inflation. Even though the universe has smoothed out its temperature, it still will never be perfectly even, there will always be small fluctuations. These small fluctuations however will expand with the inflation and will give rise to large different regions of the universe with slightly different temperature. As the universe then continues to expand at a normal rate those regions will not be given time to comunicate and even out the differences. So when the universe eventually arrives at the decoupling it will have an approximately even temperature distribution, but the small fluctuations from just before the inflation will still be there.
In that model we today expect to see almost the same temperature in every direction, but with small fluctuations from different regions. Indeed COBE registered also these fluctuations, giving a snapshot of how the universe looked just before the inflation, only a fraction of a second after the big bang itself.
The official motivation for the Nobel price is ''for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation''.
\begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics{cobe-max} % name of the file - without extension \caption{The famous snapshot of the universe a fraction of a second after its creation.} \end{figure}
i don't see why this is super important, the big whoop about it is the visible wavelength, but why is the visible wavelength in anyway important?
i mean form a scientific point of view, of course it's nice to see pretty pictures, but is it necessarily more instructive than the myriad of infra-red ones we already have?
maybe i've done too much maths to really care anymore
On January 29 2008 05:51 drift0ut wrote: i don't see why this is super important, the big whoop about it is the visible wavelength, but why is the visible wavelength in anyway important?
i mean form a scientific point of view, of course it's nice to see pretty pictures, but is it necessarily more instructive than the myriad of infra-red ones we already have?
maybe i've done too much maths to really care anymore
No, the big whoop isn't about the 'visible wavelength' vs infrared or anything. It is the fact that the galaxies collected in this picture are the oldest galaxies ever imaged, galaxies that were created soon after the Big Bang. When you look into that picture, you are looking back over 13 billion years in time, in the early stages of our Universe. Plus, it's amazing.
This is smaller than a 1 mm by 1 mm square of paper held 1 meter away, and equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky.
If they had looked "1 mm held one meter away" to the left, they would have seen where God spelled out Leviticus 11:22 in galaxies.
And THAT would have been the most important image in history.
Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
I dunno man, but that's one unimpressive passage in the Bible.
And Cascade, that's one neat presentation. Simple and understandable. I'd really have to say the color variant of the background radiation might be right at the top of the "most important image" list, judging by the implications it provokes, not the picture itself. Hope you got an A there ^^
Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
I dunno man, but that's one unimpressive passage in the Bible.
And Cascade, that's one neat presentation. Simple and understandable. I'd really have to say the color variant of the background radiation might be right at the top of the "most important image" list, judging by the implications it provokes, not the picture itself. Hope you got an A there ^^