Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Hubble Ultra Deep Field In Infrared

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the look-into-my-eyes dept.

NASA 95

Hynee writes "Just in time for Christmas, HubbleSite has released a Hubble Ultra Deep Field redux. The original was in visible light; this version, five years on, is in infrared (1.05, 1.25 and 1.6 um). The observation is in support of the upcoming JWST, which will observe exclusively in infrared, but the newly installed WFC3 does seem to provide some extra resolution over the 2004 visible observations with WFC2."

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CmdrTaco and kdawson love cocks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378042)

CmdrTaco and kdawson have 2 inch penises that they have to use tweezers to jack off. When they go to the glory hole they get confused for toddlers.

Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (5, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378094)

That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky (according to Wikipedia, it's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies, each one containing millions of stars.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1, Offtopic)

nixytech (1696798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378362)

If that makes you feel tiny then wait till you've finished reading this post!! Now imagine how BIG the alien from MIB must be to play with a marble that contains our galaxy!! Then imagine how much BIGGER the alien would need to be to play with a marble that contained our universe!! Now I feel tiny from writing that and I’m a 20 stone sweat monster!!

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (5, Insightful)

ThorofAsgard (1644263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378410)

If only Carl Sagan were alive to see these new images.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

Wargames (91725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378916)

"Billions and billions and billions...and BILLIONS and Billions....and... and...billions...'

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378670)

To put that into an easier perspective to visualize for people too lazy to check wikipedia before doing the calculations themselves, the width of the image is about 1/10th to 1/8th the diameter of the Moon seen from Earth (depending on when and where you are).

(Heh, captcha was "abstruse".)

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379820)

I don't think that makes things much easier...people have quite subjective perceptions when it comes to the size of Moon.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30383022)

I don't think that makes things much easier...people have quite subjective perceptions when it comes to the size of Moon.

Why would it be subjective? The width would appear to be the same to everyone who looks up at the moon, being 1/8 to 1/10 of the diameter. There is some guessing I suppose to figure out how small that would be, but it is more spatial recognition, nothing subjective... unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, as what you said was kind of subjective ;-)

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30383244)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion [wikipedia.org]

You never noticed how the Moon appears much bigger when it's near the horizon? (when in reality it's slightly smaller then)

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

Tynin (634655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384446)

Ah, thank you for the explanation. That makes more sense.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (5, Funny)

Fulseman (1031990) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378688)

Your girlfriends name is Hubble too? What are the odds.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (3, Funny)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379080)

It is so nice God took the time to make these Galaxies so we could have light at night. A couple more moons probably would have been easier though.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379852)

Pffff, the old fart decided to scatter billions of billions of stars throughout Universe and didn't give us even small another one in far-spaced binary system.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1, Interesting)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30383104)

You laugh but I told by a pastor once that I should consider the possibilty that all the stars in the sky at night are there because his god loves us to much and wanted to give us something truly beautiful to look at. He said it honestly, like it was what he actually believed. It was really quite sad, or disturbing, or both.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

teeloo (766817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379108)

So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky? And while you're at it, can you count the number of galaxies and multiply by..... thx.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379776)

arcminute = 1/60 of one degree
arcsecond = 1/60 of a arcminute
milliarcsecond = 1/1000 arcsecond
microarcsecond = 1 x 10e-6 arcsecond

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

Physics Dude (549061) | more than 4 years ago | (#30382772)

So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky? ...

Well, some quick math gives about 25.7 million of this size region to cover the entire sky. (assuming I didn't miss a decimal point

As far as number of galaxies in the photo, I'll leave that up to you to count. ;)

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

Zhus (1237616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30386410)

So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky? ...

Well, some quick math gives about 25.7 million of this size region to cover the entire sky. (assuming I didn't miss a decimal point

As far as number of galaxies in the photo, I'll leave that up to you to count. ;)

I think you may have missed a decimal point or several...

Assuming we take the night sky to be a hemisphere, it will span 2*Pi steradians in solid angle.

However one steradian is simply a square radian = (180/Pi)^2 degrees^2 = 3283 square degrees = 97670 (11 arcminutes)^2.

--

Putting it all together means that the night sky will span about 614,000 of these 11-arcseond squares.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30398856)

For the older hubble udf(taken before 2009) it took about 13 billion of that size to cover the entire sky... this one is tighter and less of the sky so your math is off somewhere. The last one had an estimated 10,000 galaxies. That makes at least 130 billion galaxies everywhere, extrapolating roughly from the older one and this one contains a lot of deeper galaxies unseen by the previous UDF. I would guess this new one (~sept2009) makes our conservative estimate of the # of galaxies in the visible universe larger by at least a factor of 10...so at least 1.3 trillion galaxies in the visible universe conservatively. The kinky alien sex acts going on out there...you have no idea.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379216)

And yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the only way that life can exist is if an invisible sky daddy created it.

Which is why I truly believe that light pollution is a conspiracy meant to hide the vastness that is space from the average person.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380862)

And yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the only way that life can exist is if an invisible sky daddy created it.

Or worse, that our planet is the only one with intelligent life on it.

Even if an "invisible sky daddy" created life (directly or indirectly), why would he only do it on one planet, with so many trillions of other planets available to also experiment with?

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384736)

Adam and Eve had been busy all these years and they are currently on some far planet "experimenting". The Bible never mentioned it because it is written by human, and the light from that planet never got here yet.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (3, Informative)

Cunk (643486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379224)

The new image is 2.4 arc-minutes wide according to hubblesite.org

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380452)

One arc minute is 1/60 of a degree of arc. The angular diameter of the full moon or the Sun as seen from Earth is about 30 arc minutes. This image would be about 1/12 the apparent size of the Sun or the full Moon as seen from Earth.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379266)

That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky (according to Wikipedia, it's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies, each one containing millions of stars.

Make that billions of stars. Yep, we're tiny alright.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379274)

FYI, the HubbleSite [http] says it's 2.4 arcminutes. Whatever an arcminute is.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

zawarski (1381571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381724)

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 4 years ago | (#30382438)

What remains to be done, is to find an empty patch in this new image and do the same for this "empty" patch. But I guess the equipment is not good enough for another level of depth.

Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30385412)

I put the new one on top of the old one. XCF here [melikamp.com] , you will need tar, bzip2, gimp.

I can definitely find a few places where the new image has a small spot, while the old one has dark background.

Alot of blue out there (2)

Stan92057 (737634) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378152)

Looking at that image leave me with no dought there is life out there,its just too far away to contact or visit :)

Need Bigger Hubble! (4, Interesting)

Favonius Cornelius (1691688) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378238)

The Hubble has a tiny mirror. Imagine what we could see if it was 10m or 20m. We can do it easily! Well ok maybe not easy, but we should do it, no matter the cost.

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (5, Interesting)

taricorp (987706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378854)

I'm with you that we need bigger space-based telescopes, but I don't think building more in orbit is the best solution. Given the raw material possibilities [utk.edu] presented by lunar regolith, I could see the energy cost of moving some materials to the far side of the moon being well offset by the lower amount of materials that must be shunted up there by rocket. We may not have the requisite technologies to set up a lunar optical observatory right now, but I'm confident the technologies could be developed fairly quickly, given a concerted effort.

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (2, Informative)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380336)

I graduated Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo in aerospace engineering. Every year, the senior level Bachelor's students participate in a year long spacecraft design mission. Approximately 30 - 40 students team up to fulfill some mission requirements thought up by a few of the professors. I wasn't able to attend the final design review last year, but I know for a fact that the project they worked on involved setting up a telescope array on the dark side of the moon. I have no doubt that their design probably had some holes in it and definitely failed to account for some things because, well, all student designs do. However, I also know for a fact that those 30 some odd students had to develop a design and implementation (launch, orbital trajectories, power solutions, thermal balancing issues, communications systems, the whole shebang if you will) that was practical and possible. In other words, if they relied on unobtainium, they would not have passed.

The moral of the story is that if a handful of Bachelor's students can come up with a practical design concept in 9 months, there really is no reason that NASA, JPL, or, hell, even some commercial agency, couldn't set up a full telescope array on the dark side of the moon given proper funding and motivation. Then again, that's the kicker. Grades are great motivation for students. In the real world, someone has to fork over dollars, and people don't like doing that for science anymore....

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380906)

The moral of the story is that if a handful of Bachelor's students can come up with a practical design concept in 9 months, there really is no reason that NASA, JPL, or, hell, even some commercial agency, couldn't set up a full telescope array on the dark side of the moon given proper funding and motivation. Then again, that's the kicker. Grades are great motivation for students. In the real world, someone has to fork over dollars, and people don't like doing that for science anymore....

Yep, money as usual is the problem. There's plenty of it floating around actually, but our government would rather spend it on wars and bailing out poorly-managed companies than on something genuinely useful, and our citizens are too stupid to care and vote in someone better (instead, they vote for someone who cries "Change!" and then, when elected, just keeps doing the same dumb things as his predecessor).

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (1)

G00F (241765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30382514)

I am all for a lunar base for many reasons, not just setting up a lunar base for a telescope, but what about having an array of dishes setup, where the moon would shield all that radio interference that our modern civilization makes?

Not to mention, I would love to see some futuristic mining and space ship building facilities there.

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (1)

Biogenesis (670772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384334)

I wonder, would we be better off building it on the side of the Moon facing us as that we we'd still be able to communicate with it via a direct radio link. What advantages would building one on the far side have? A telescope's view of the sky would be the same: away from the Sun. Hmm, (thinking while typing here) but on the near side it would be looking towards Earth. I wonder if that would be a big deal from a light pollution perspective?

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384816)

the moon rotates around earth, so the "dark" side will get half time facing the sun also. you could go with a dark side dishes setup with satellite around moon setup.

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30385146)

The problem with building large telescopes (or any large, delicate equipment) either in orbit or on the moon is the increased chance of collision by asteroids or other space debris. Replacing a large, broken mirror in orbit (nevermind on the dark side of the moon) would be quite costly.

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378900)

Well the 42m mirror E-ELT is coming up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Extremely_Large_Telescope
Too bad they cancelled the 100m OWL, it would have kicked ass http://www.gemini.edu/science/maxat/future/future.html
Besides, it had a much catchier name.

Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380528)

I agree that we need to build a unmanned lunar observatory (but built by humans on the moon). I would like to see a 100m or larger liquid mercury mirror with a reflecting mirror that is in Lunar orbit. Radio telescopes at a few locations may be a simpler goal to start with however.

The're out there... (2, Funny)

gabereiser (1662967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378348)

somewhere... waiting to enslave us.....

That is FUCKING AMAZING. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378398)

That is truly amazing. I've been out of the field for about a decade now since retiring, but when I got my PhD in Astronomy in the 1960s, we never expected to have such fantastic photography of the celestial bodies. This is truly a tremendous accomplishment by all involved.

Re:That is FUCKING AMAZING. (4, Informative)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378560)

How old does that make you? :-)

In any case, it is perhaps thanks to people like you that the field has advanced to such a degree when we can enjoy such mindbogglingly marvelous photos of the Universe.

fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30378522)

If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them? Humans can't see infrared.

Re:fake (2, Informative)

jimbobborg (128330) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378644)

From the article:

"Infrared light is invisible and therefore does not have colors that can be perceived by the human eye. The colors in the image are assigned comparatively short, medium, and long, near-infrared wavelengths (blue, 1.05 microns; green, 1.25 microns; red, 1.6 microns). The representation is "natural" in that blue objects look blue and red objects look red. The faintest objects are about one-billionth as bright as can be seen with the naked eye."

Re:fake (0, Flamebait)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378796)

If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them? Humans can't see infrared.

I do hope you were trolling... that's the dumbest question I've heard in a long time. And I have teenagers... (I will show this to them, they will laugh...)

So, assuming it was a joke. Tres drole, tres drole. /golfclap

Re:fake (1)

thelonious (233200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379086)

Dude, they have been shopped

Re:fake (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379906)

If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them? Humans can't see infrared.

It's a trick to out the aliens. You posted AC, but we will find you. Now, for the rest, if you will please read the following text...

This post was caused by a static charge from a weather balloon igniting swamp gas.

Am I the only one... (2, Funny)

Fez (468752) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378654)

Am I the only one that misread that as "Deep Fried" and expected a completely different kind of story?

Age of life (1)

Rashdot (845549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378724)

I guess that at an age of 600 million years there was no life yet in the universe. I wonder at what age life may first have existed, and at what age intelligent life could have evolved. One could imagine a series of 'life bubbles' outside of which no life (or intelligent life) is to be expected.

Ahem... (4, Interesting)

kipsate (314423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378932)

Perhaps a stupid question, but is 500 million years enough time for all of these spiral galaxies to form?

Re:Ahem... (4, Interesting)

ei4anb (625481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379104)

not a stupid question at all, it's not enough time for some theories of galaxy formation, given the lack of lumps visible in the cosmic background radiation. However only the furthest galaxies in the view in that image are of that age. There has beem much speculation on the role of supermassive black holes in forming galaxies and that may explain why they seem to have formed faster that expected. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole [wikipedia.org]

Re:Ahem... (4, Interesting)

kindbud (90044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379158)

To the extent that the observations and estimations of the galaxy's ages are accurate, yes it was enough time. Now they want to figure out how they formed more quickly than expected. If there is no reason to suspect that the observations and estimations are not accurate enough to rely on, then it must be our expectations of the time required for galaxy formation that is in need of revision.

Re:Ahem... (0, Troll)

kipsate (314423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379196)

...and assuming the big bang theory is correct (which I have the audacity to doubt upon).

Re:Ahem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379318)

Hmm. What part of it is wrong?

Re:Ahem... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380950)

Probably all of it, actually. There was an article recently (here on /. I think, but I forget now) talking about a new theory which accounts for dark matter, and changes the "big bang" to something less explosive. Time will tell if this new theory becomes more accepted than the Big Bang theory, but I imagine that it won't be too long before it's overturned or revised, as most scientific theories are.

Re:Ahem... (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379458)

You have a better theory that correlates with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ? That predicts and matches its power spectral density to a fraction of a %, as well as its polarisation distribution? Great, let's hear it.

The truth is that the CMBR is a relic of the inflationary Big Bang. It's a Smoking Gun - almost literally. Look it up.

Re:Ahem... (0, Flamebait)

kipsate (314423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379856)

Allright then...

Perhaps the universe started completely empty and gradually filled up our universe with energy, particles, creating space and time gradually. Perhaps the existance of space induces the creation of energy in our universe.

That may also explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Since there is increasingly more space, energy gets created at an accelerated pace in our universe.

Energy can't appear out of nothing. That's why I say our universe. Conservation of energy demands "negative" energy to have been created simultaneously in such a way our universe can't interact with it (or we would have never existed).

Re:Ahem... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380314)

So basically, you dont beleive in a theory backed by a crapload of high quality observational evidence and replace it with a few sprinklings of "perhaps this, perhaps that".

damn....

Re:Ahem... (0, Troll)

kipsate (314423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380688)

The observational "evidence" has required the BB theory to be refined frequently. In itself there's nothing wrong with refining a theory, but a theory having to be refined a lot starts to lose its credibility.

About the word "perhaps": the whole BB theory itself is a big "perhaps", especially as there are other explanations possible for the same observations. It's just that currently, the consensus is that the BB theory fits these observations the best.

Re:Ahem... (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381122)

The observational "evidence" has required the BB theory to be refined frequently. In itself there's nothing wrong with refining a theory, but a theory having to be refined a lot starts to lose its credibility.

That's an irrational statement. In fact, it's rubbish. That's like saying that a marksman who practices a lot to become good loses his credibility as a marksman. Why? Because he wasn't 100% accurate first time and had to work at it?

Do you have any scientific training at all? Your reply seems to indicate that you don't. A "theory" is a framework that explains things. The more you know about the real world, the more you may have to adapt your theory to fit. Sometimes the theory cannot be further adapted - like the Steady State Model which just could not explain observations further, and was abandoned.

From 10,000 ft, science is a theory of the universe. It has been refined 100,000,000 times or more in the past 400 years. It doesn't appear to be losing its credibility given what it achieves - look around you - except amongst liedeologists.

It's just that currently, the consensus is that the BB theory fits these observations the best.

That's right. It is the consensus, and doesn't appear to be losing its credibility despite your earlier remark. In fact, more than ever it appears to be right. There are mysteries and unknowns, and scientists eagerly await to see what refinements will come next.

Re:Ahem... (0, Troll)

kipsate (314423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381706)

Ok, "refined" should perhaps have read "adapted".

What I meant to say is that a theory that has to be constantly backfitted to match observations instead of predicting those observations loses credibility.

I'd love to see how the Big Bang theory fits observations that the universe is open (i.e., expanding at an accelerating pace). Oh yeah, of course, dark matter has been invented to backfit these observations... brilliant. Good luck with that!

Re:Ahem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30382118)

Can you people stop being so darn vague? You obviously are all (astro-)physicists so get your alternative theory on the table so we can get rid of that PR-disaster called the big bang. Or at least share with us what faulty assumptions or data all your colleagues have missed. Because its darn important. And i hope you know what you are talking about.

Re:Ahem... (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380880)

You seem to be describing the "Steady State Model" - something put forward by Hoyle in 1948 as an alternative to the Big Bang. Allow me to answer the CMBR question on your behalf - Hoyle suggested that in the Steady State Model the CMBR was due to radiation interactions with iron dust, giving a thermalisation.

When CMBR data became available - showing an almost perfect black body signature - the Steady State Model could not get better than a 10% or so match. Whereas the Big Bang model agreed to 1 part on 10^4. That's extremely close. Most cosmologists have given up on the Steady State Model.

Also the Big Bang makes predictions of the distributions - relative amounts, or abundance - of the light elements and their isotopes. "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis" gives good agreement with observational data, although it is difficult to make measurements, and there are a number of discrepancies.

So while it is good to be skeptical you have to understand that the origin of the Cosmos has been a subject of intense scientific study. Many ideas have been suggested, but only one fits (extremely) well with the observational data. These other ideas have dropped by the wayside. Dream away with your cosmology, but you have to make it compatible with a lot of physics.

ps. Just for fun: why not create energy? I don't think you have to have a zero net sum. That's a product of space symmetries - and if you want to break those in your ideas go ahead. Energy conservation may only be a local effect.
I might be wrong in saying this, but, a CMBR photon has been enormously red-shifted from its original energetic state by the expansion of the universe. Energy is related to wavelength (Plank). Where did that energy go? It appears to have been lost!

Re:Ahem... (0, Troll)

kipsate (314423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381320)

"Also the Big Bang makes predictions of the distributions - relative amounts, or abundance - of the light elements and their isotopes."

I think you have it backwards. The Big Bang theory was "refined" to match the observed distributions of the light elements.

If the observed distribution was in line with some previously established predictions that the BB theory brought forward, then it would have added significantly to the theory's credibility. Backfitting a theory to observed data hurts its credibility.

Re:Ahem... (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384942)

I think you have it backwards. The Big Bang theory was "refined" to match the observed distributions of the light elements.

So fucking what? All science is based on revisions, refinements, adaptations, evolutions and revolutions. Somehow you think this denigrates a theory.

Big bang nucleosythesis was developed to explain the then observational data. The theory was a novel idea, a eureka moment for physics. It made numerous predications and follow-on work made even more.

Big bang nucleosythesis is good for explaining and predicting the abundances of 99% of the universe's baryonic matter. That's not bad. New measurements fit well with the theory's predictions.

Go and read "The First 3 Minutes" by Weinberg, for chrissake.

Re:Ahem... (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380294)

The Big Bang theory is based on the observations. To critique it, you must attack the reliability of the observations. Vague hand waving about philosophical doubts gets you nowhere. That's for church, not science.

Re:Ahem... (1)

kipsate (314423) | more than 4 years ago | (#30380344)

Bullshit. Attacking a theory does not mean attacking the observations it's based on.

Re:Ahem... (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30383402)

The observations led to the theory. Not only must your alternative theory explain the observations as well as the Big Bang theory does, it must also explain why the Big Bang theory appeared to explain the observations, even though it was incorrect. So you're wrong: it is all about the observations. It's always about the observations.

Re:Ahem... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30383468)

In case of Big Bang theory, it's perhaps as close as you can get: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE#Black-body_curve_of_CMB [wikipedia.org]
Early observation only hinted at the Big Bang, were for a long time inconclusive/incomplete. First we had the theory with testable conclusions, only at some later point in time we were technically able to do the necessary observations. They confirmed those conclusions.

After xkcd:

Science: We finally figured out that you could separate fact from superstition by a completely radical method: observation. You can try things, measure them, and see how they work! Bitches. ... data from the COBE mission, which looked at the background microwave glow of the universe and found that it fit perfectly with the idea that the universe used to be really hot everywhere. This strongly reinforced the Big Bang theory and was one of the most dramatic examples of an experiment agreeing with a theory in history -- the data points fit perfectly, with error bars too small to draw on the graph. It's one of the most triumphant scientific results in history.

(emphasis mine)

Re:Ahem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30386134)

The Big Bang theory is not based on observations. If it was it would have been dismissed long ago. It is about getting new observations, thinking 'oh shit!' and adding tacking on a new theory to make it fit.

We need to start basing theories on actual data, not going out looking for data to support one theory.

Big Bang become a religion a while ago now.

Re:Ahem... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30394056)

Tell that to the dark energy lunatics. ^^

Re:Ahem... (1)

_bug_ (112702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379738)

I doubt any of those spiral galaxies are 500 million years from the big bang.

Just about every object in the image has a different age. Several of the spiral galaxies you see are billions of years from the big bang. The 500 million years from big bang objects are more likely to be giant clouds of gasses and stars. The sort of stuff we didn't see with the visible light images taken in 2004, but that we can now see with the infrared filters used to make the new image.

Re:Ahem... (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381198)

Do you have any evidence or detailed interpretation to support your assertion? Have you calculated a red-shift? Please share your calculations with us ....

You are not even looking at the raw data - just the adjusted images made available in press kits.

More life (1)

Vetruvet (1639267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378946)

Seeing that image which is a TINY fraction (perhaps too small to even be considered a fraction) of the universe makes me wonder how some people think there can't be any other life in the universe... We just can't communicate with it because of distance/delay concerns.

Re:More life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379332)

If there is life out there is the big question huh?

The question really is how common is *OUR* form of life or something we would consider life and someone who is able/willing to talk to us. Do we set special requirements on that? Or is it wide open and you can call a rock 'life'. What parameters cause life, distance from sun, lack of asteroids in the area, distance from some other celestial body? Then even if you get other life are we too advanced or not advanced enough to talk to it? Then what if we are trying to talk on the wrong frequencies? What if their stuff is encrypted in some way as to look like background noise?

So life may be rare and we are the 'only ones', or it could be wildly abundant. You can not say one way or another without somehow talking to the other group (which would be rare in and of itself as we do not talk to bugs but they are life), or going there, or having a amazing telescope to observe with. Or as they put it on red dwarf there may just be a lot of smegin rocks and more rocks.

Re:More life (1)

eleuthero (812560) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379512)

People tend to be arrogant - we don't know of anything outside ourselves and so it must not exist. Strangely, and I do find it quite strange, many of my fellow Christians intimate that there cannot be life anywhere but here. How that fits with belief in someone else we cannot see or prove, I don't know. It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be. If the purpose of the universe does not involve such (again, remembering I am a Christian here), then they would not exist. If their existence does fit in with God's plan, then they certainly exist (some have suggested that this is perhaps the identity of "angels" from CS Lewis to various others). The question then becomes not, do they exist, but, what relevance to life on earth do other beings elsewhere have (which might change should there ever be a point of contact).

Re:More life (1)

al0ha (1262684) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379780)

Well said.

Re:More life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30380024)

many of my fellow Christians intimate that there cannot be life anywhere but here

That's very strange, considering that an absolute belief in Christianity practically requires a belief in non-terrestrial life. Perhaps the "fellow Christians" that you associate with are simply unfamiliar with the teachings of their own religion?

Re:More life (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381032)

Interestingly, the Mormons, which are an offshoot of Christianity, do believe in life on other planets. They even believe that God (Jahweh) is an alien that lives on the planet Kolob, and is one of many such gods.

They probably don't talk openly about this very much with outsiders, just as Scientologists don't talk openly about Xenu and the Galactic Confederation, though it's central to their belief that Xenu brought billions of people here and killed them with atomic bombs to reduce overpopulation, and their souls ("thetas") are plaguing us now and causing what appear to be mental disorders.

How any sane, rational person can believe any of these things (or any of the beliefs of more "mainstream" religions) when presented with them laid out clearly and plainly, I have no idea. It all borders on insanity.

Re:More life (1)

Gogogoch (663730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381380)

It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be.

You observation is very astute. May I suggest that you are either an ignorant Christian pedophile, or you are not.

But hold! You said "and" instead of "or"! You're thinking from a quantum mechanical perspective. My apologies, I think you're right. There are aliens, and there are not aliens, and it will not be decided until with observe them? Cool. But to them we're the aliens..... ah shit, let's just say they are 'angels'.

---
Atheism is the rejection of dogmas, for it is the non-assertion of a delusional positive. - G.K Chesterfield

Merry christmas (2, Funny)

mugurel (1424497) | more than 4 years ago | (#30378988)

Just in time for Christmas,...

Deep fried in infrared, duh! this is just the neighbor's christmas tree!

is there any way to contribute? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379102)

I've always loved astronomy but I'm not good enough to pay all my bills as a engineer. Seeing how I cannot sign a check and be done with it are there any other resources I can contribute?

It's not that big... (2, Informative)

Golddess (1361003) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379278)

That is simply awesome looking. But... only 2345x2039 [hubblesite.org] ? The original maxed out at 6200x6200 [hubblesite.org] . What gives? :P

Comparison Between 2004 and 2009 Images (5, Informative)

_bug_ (112702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379414)

I took the 2004 UDF image and rotated/cropped as needed to match with the 2009 UDF image so you can switch between the two and compare the differences.

2004 UDF [imageshack.us] | 2009 UDF [imageshack.us]

The new image uses infrared versus the visible light filters from the 2004 image. The resolution may not differ much between the two images, but the infrared will pick up deeper objects that we missed with the visible light filters. However the visible light image tends to pick up more detail such as in the spiral galaxy in the middle-left. That galaxy is known as UDF 7556 and what you see is how it was 6.1 billion years after the big bang.

This stuff is so cool.

Re:Comparison Between 2004 and 2009 Images (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379950)

Very cool. At first i was thinking, wow, the new one looks so washed out and gray. But the background on the new one is black.. just with so so many specks in it.. i'm simply amazed. Are those all galaxies? When i lean into the moniter and pick out one of those specks, is that a whole damn galaxy?

Re:Comparison Between 2004 and 2009 Images (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#30382382)

Probably more than one, but yes, the big one in front hiding them all is a galaxy. :)

Re:Comparison Between 2004 and 2009 Images (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30383886)

When i lean into the moniter and pick out one of those specks, is that a whole damn galaxy?

While I do have some questions as to how you are doing this, please stop destroying the galaxies.

Anyone else (1)

proxy318 (944196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379450)

Read that as "Hubble Ultra Deep Fried"? I thought they were making cheese sticks in space.

clearly time and distance.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30379654)

Time and Distance must not work the way we think they do. The spaces seen here are unfathomable and immeasureable by our current methods. We can attach numbers to the distances but have no clear conception of just how far and long it is in our minds. If we are to traverse these distances, then we need to be rethinking our notions of how time and distance function.

Re:clearly time and distance.... (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30381096)

I'm guessing that traversing these distances in any decent time is going to require rethinking our notions of how many dimensions the Universe has, and figuring out how to move between other, non-visible dimensions. As long as we're stuck in our current 3+time dimensions and saddled with the lightspeed limit, we might as well not bother going anywhere beyond Alpha Centauri.

Technical Corrections (1)

Einer2 (665985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30379900)

The optical observations of the UDF from 2004 were conducted with the Advanced Camera for Surveys/Wide Field Channel (ACS/WFC) not the predecessor to WFC3 (Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2, or WF/PC2). Also, the optical channel of WFC3 does offer a small improvement in pixel scale (40 milliarcseconds/pixel, versus 50 mas/pix for ACS/WFC. However, the near-infrared channel (where these images were taken) only has a pixel scale of 130 mas/pix, a factor of ~2.5 worse than ACS/WFC.

(The diffraction limit of HST varies from ~50 mas at 500 nm to ~150 mas at 1.5 microns, so the native resolution is worse as well. However, undersampling of images due to the detectors' oversized pixels is what dominates the fine details of its effective resolution. The true resolution is actually hard to estimate offhand for images like this. Each observation occurs with sub-pixel offsets with respect to the others, so if you subsample and stack them, you can recover much of the resolution that was lost due to undersampling. With many orbits' worth of images contributing to the UDF, they might have gotten back all of the lost resolution.)

FRIST STOP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30383116)

private sex party To use the GNAA 200 ru8nigng NT

UDF Infrared Lines (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 4 years ago | (#30384484)

I took the extra large web image and decided to draw some lines to connect large (12 pixel or more), bright (50% luminous) objects together. The point was to try to find large regions of relatively dark sky in the image. Why? The original deep field images were taken upon "black" sky to see what really long exposures could find. Now with the ultra deep field images, it's plenty clear that most "black" sky has lots of galaxies visible. So, in the future, it'd probably be a good idea to take an ultra deep field image of a "black" part of the ultra deep field image just to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Besides, the images are pretty.

Hubble UDF Infrared with lines connecting large, bright objects [imagebin.ca]

The same as above, but with the large, bright objects colored to better differentiate what counts as "large, bright objects" [imagebin.ca]

PS - I used two slightly different, slowish python scripts to do the actual drawing. I'll post them as well, if anyone is interested.

deep field of the deep field? (1)

simplerThanPossible (1056682) | more than 4 years ago | (#30386484)

Can they take a tiny part of the deep field image, that is (apparently) black, and do the same thing again?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>