Hubble's Deepest View of Universe Unveils Never-Before-Seen Galaxies (w/ Video)

It's evident, we can see no evidence of galaxy formation even at the most distant parts of Universe.

Huh? What's this mean? The news release says we can & you are saying we can't?

@Alexa,
The matter in galaxies is not infinitely old and the dark ages are real based on many types of evidence. Not least is that the early universe was made up mostly of hydrogen with some helium, before stars had the chance to burn those elements into higher elements. If stars went back in time indefinitely the universe would have burned out long ago.

Aether theory isn't generally accepted, and simplistic/weak/nonsensical arguments like yours don't add any credibility to it.

I understand the curiosity that drives people to want to know more about the universe than we know today. But I don't understand why many people latch onto poorly supported theories like aether and try to use random facts in isolation from other facts to support such speculative/discredited theories. Its like some people want to believe they have special knowledge, the experts don't have, so badly they will accept or manufacture any mirage that supports something different from the current consensus.

We can see evidence of galaxy formation in all parts of the visible universe. Tidal dwarf galaxies are seen to form in collisions of nearby galaxies. Lyman-alpha blobs and emitters are thought to be indicative of vigorous star formation at intermediate distances from the Earth. Ultraluminous infrared galaxies and active galactic nuclei (both seen in the HUDF and other deep fields) are evidence of galaxy formation in the most distant parts of the Universe. If Aether theory predicts uniformly old stellar populations in all galaxies, it doesn't fit with current observations.

It's evident, we can see no evidence of galaxy formation even at the most distant parts of Universe.

Yeah, and there's no evidence of evolution either. Yeesh.

Lets face it. Space is not a finite space, but infinite. Galaxies extend to this infinite, to no end. Some parts of it collapse on it's own to create a big bang, which is in fact a bing bang the size of grain of sand on earth. There was no beginning and there will be no end, only changes, small or massive.

Lets face it. Space is not a finite space, but infinite. Galaxies extend to this infinite, to no end. Some parts of it collapse on it's own to create a big bang, which is in fact a bing bang the size of grain of sand on earth. There was no beginning and there will be no end, only changes, small or massive.

Do you have any actual evidence, or math, or *anything* to back this up? I certainly support your right to have an opinion, but phrasing it as a self-evident fact without any backup doesn't make it so, and won't make people believe you just because.

As a matter of fact I do. Look out, what do you see? infinity. Look in, what do you see? infinity.

Any object can be cut in half, forever, because there will always be 2 remains from a cut, so those remains can be cut again, indefinitely.

The reverse is the same. It can always get bigger, there are no space walls to stop the growth.

Indefinitely, Infinity, that's all the evidence we need.

There are no ends. It keeps on going and going, forever and ever.

...and as far as the big bang goes, why do we assume that the little tiny minuscule portion of space we are in, with a little tiny minuscule explosion, is though to be the beginning of time (the big bang)? Ridiculous.

Lets see, that little grain of sand on one of Florida beach is a small part of Space, made of smaller particles, called molecules (galaxies?) and in turn made of even smaller particles. Well, if that grain of sand exploded, will it create all the beaches on earth, or for that matter, all the beaches on all the planets in the entire universe? Absolutely ridiculous.

Alienizer, you clearly have no understanding of modern physics. Space and Time are the same parameter, viewed from different inertial perspectives. Size is relative. A single photon, to us, is a tiny thing, so minuscule as to be barely detectable. Yet, to that same photon, the size of the whole universe is infinitesimal. From it's perspective, it takes no time at all to get from Andromeda to us, even though from our perspective it takes millions of years.

And I don't see infinity when I look out, nor when I look in. The Infinite is neither perceivable nor comprehensible by finite human beings. Infinity is always merely inferred from a finite series of finite occurrences.

@Alexa,

nevermark should've mentioned a little factoid that your "Aether theory" might have trouble with: more distant galaxies are spectroscopically proven to contain fewer heavy elements (i.e. elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.) Thus, empirical data tells us undeniably that matter all across the observable universe started out very simple and only got more complicated in the course of churning by generations of stars (i.e. over time.) As time goes on, more heavy elements are produced and galaxies become enriched in "metals" -- what astronomers call any element with more than two protons in its nucleus.

There are no ends. It keeps on going and going, forever and ever.

Frankly, I cannot understand, why some people are so obsessed by finite universe concept, whereas some other are inventing parallel and extrauniverses. This just illustrates conceptual confusion of publicity. Universe is unique, from this its name follows.

If Aether theory predicts uniformly old stellar populations in all galaxies, it doesn't fit with current observations.

In my opinion Universe appears like dynamic Perlin noise, which gets compacted into form of foam, when being observed from our perspective. So it's nothing strange, some galaxies are forming from quasars, whereas some other are evaporating, like streaks in time lapse movie of clouds - its dynamic process of quantum foam or density fluctuations in a gas under huge magnification. On the contrary, just from Big Bang theory follows, most of stars would be of the approximatelly same age, as PinkElephant explained 1hour ago - because they were formed at the single moment. There are some indicia, even some stars in our galaxy may get older, then the age proposed by Big Bang model - they're forming remnants of ancient galaxies, which existed well before Milky Way had came into existence.

http://map.gsfc.n...age.html

Frankly, I cannot understand, why some people are so obsessed by finite universe concept, whereas some other are inventing parallel and extrauniverses. This just illustrates conceptual confusion of publicity. Universe is unique, from this its name follows.

And you know this.. how exactly?

What I want to know is why don't people wait for the small individual pieces (advancements in science and observation) to come together, and try to come up with all sort of half-assed theories and stories based on mostly diddly squat, that they try to adapt to reality as they go along.

I think the universe is made of tiny bursting soap bubbles.... of infinite density of course.

Bleh.

Anyway, it's evident, Hubble depth field doesn't reveal hot & dense universe in its very beginning - but another well developed, sparsely distributed galaxies without traces of Universe formation. This is just a bare fact. Between many weird cosmological theories

http://www.newsci...ies.html

the concept, Universe is infinite random stuff isn't very extravagant at all - it just tries to minimize postulates by Occam's razor principle. So I don't understand, why all people are avoiding it so much. Frankly speaking, scientists have no better models anyway.

There's a few physicists who I've worked with over the years who have said some rather insightful things about the Universe and human exploration.

Think about it this way. In about 10 billion years the night sky will be all but vacant of galaxies to visible light devices. That is aside from our very own Milky Way, or rather the mix of the Milky way and Andromeda. Think if we were having this discussion then? We'd be talking about whether other galaxies could possibly exist, and whoever was the proponent of that theory would have no physical or observable evidence for it.

Now think about what this discussion would be like if the Universe was only 1 billion years old?

Our frame of reference limits the accuracy with which we can discuss this topic. Right now we're still very similar to those who thought the Earth was flat, since all we can see is an unending horizon in the Universe.

Much like the flat earth proponents, we may be wrong. The question is, by how much?

Are these ancient remnants seen in only one particular place in the sky, or is their light arriving from all directions, as is the Cosmic Microwave Background? If we can see only one part of the sky is older than the rest, what implications are there for the models of Hubble's expanding universe?

In about 10 billion years the night sky will be all but vacant of galaxies to visible light devices. That is aside from our very own Milky Way, or rather the mix of the Milky way and Andromeda. Think if we were having this discussion then?

In 4 billion years we'll have to be advanced enough to find another planet or not to need any home planet anymore.
And if we'll be that advanced then we'll certainly have a Grand Unified Theory without all the uncertainties and controversies of contemporary theories.

Try to wrap your head around this.. If the Universe is Infinitely expanding then we have an amazing amount of possibilities..(obviously an infinite amount) Its hard to think because Physics kind of holds us back.(I'm really into physics, and how if it doesn't work, in theory, it cant happen... ie Ghosts and stuff.) But theory's are meant to be critiqued and corrected. I still don't know if I believe it but its a theory I've kinda came up with. If its (The Universe) Infinite, that means it never stops.. meaning everything and anything that can be imagined, created , made, will happen because there's an infinite amount of possibilities.. I dunno it def goes against Physics theory's but I mean how could I be wrong? if it never stops, how could everything ever even thought of not happen?...

how could I be wrong?

Because on a finite planet, for example our planet Earth, you can pick any direction and walk in an infinitely long line and never come to an end, yet you would have never left the finite earth.

Everything is dependent on frame of reference.

That's kind of why I laugh when people say the flat earth theory was wrong. It's technically not "wrong", it's just that their measurements weren't precise enough to determine the change in the Earth's surface. Now the people who say the Earth is spehrical are "wrong" because the southern hemisphere bulges more. It's actually pear shaped.

Perhaps we'll find out something equally as interesting about our Universe as time goes by.

Alienizer, you clearly have no understanding of modern physics.

I do not need to know anything about physics. The simple reason is, physical exists, always was, and always will. Time always was and always will. Without time, there can not be anything, and without anything, there can not be time.

Space is a physical entity that exists in time. Time, is the existence of a physical entity. There are no space/time warp. Every physical object lives in time. I'm not talking about our time, but an event that happens over and over, and the existence of any object is an event, even if nothing happens. Just the fact that it exist is time, because it takes time to just exist, waiting.

You can not travel to another world in a split seconds. You can only do that with time perception. But in "real" time, it took many years for that travel to happen. It takes me time to write this, so time exists.

I do not need to know anything about physics. The simple reason is, physical exists, always was, and always will. Time always was and always will. Without time, there can not be anything, and without anything, there can not be time.

Space is a physical entity that exists in time. Time, is the existence of a physical entity. There are no space/time warp. Every physical object lives in time. I'm not talking about our time, but an event that happens over and over, and the existence of any object is an event, even if nothing happens. Just the fact that it exist is time, because it takes time to just exist, waiting.

You can not travel to another world in a split seconds. You can only do that with time perception. But in "real" time, it took many years for that travel to happen. It takes me time to write this, so time exists.

Yeah, he's right, you have no understanding of modern physics.

@Alexa

In general, it could be explained by preferential dispersion of shortwavelength light of heavy elements, too...

The spectroscopy I was talking about involves absorption spectra. No amount of "preferential dispersion" is going to erase absorption elemental fingerprints from light. Try again.

recently a very distant galaxies with well developed stars were observed. Well developed means with many heavy elements.

Reference?

So it's nothing strange, some galaxies are forming from quasars, whereas some other are evaporating...

Why are all quasars found exclusively at ultra-high redshifts and very far away? Why aren't there any nearby quasars?

There are some indicia, even some stars in our galaxy may get older, then the age proposed by Big Bang model...

That would be an Earth-shattering revelation, if it were true. It is not, unfortunately. I'll just stop here; don't want to spam the thread...

Are these ancient remnants seen in only one particular place in the sky, or is their light arriving from all directions, as is the Cosmic Microwave Background? If we can see only one part of the sky is older than the rest, what implications are there for the models of Hubble's expanding universe?

Actually, all of the night sky is the same age.

Big bang theory doesn't postulate that the singularity expanded over the space we exist in, the singularity was the origin of ALL space within our Universe, meaning every point is exactly as old as every other point. The only "age" in the night sky is the age of the emitted energy we're viewing in relation to its emission point. That's why the CMB comes from everywhere, because it originated everywhere.

That's also why the Universe has no center, and why we can't point to a spot in the sky and say "the big bang came from there." because it came from everywhere we can see. The universe is its own center.

Verynarrative: Thanks for your illuminaing reply. ;-)

Perhaps you would like to take a stab at the questions asked, rather than paraphrase your textbooks.

The CMB is the oldest energy we can observe, in terms of the age of the energy when it arrives here, today. The new observations of old energy come from a source that has been estimated to be no more than 600,000,000 years after the CMB emission, meaning that energy was very close to the boundary of our universe at the time of emission. It is not noted specifically in this article, but most observations of such ancient energy sources are through 'cosmic lensing' of intermediary large gravitational fields - without which the energy would have become too divergent for us to detect.

Hence my questions, based on the those popular ideas that the CMB represents the outer limits, and the universe has no (known) center, either these observations are from near the origin (center?), or the cosmic lensing should provide multiple perspectives

Nice way to address someone trying to clarify things for you.

What you're not understanding is that there is NO CENTER to the universe. The CMB wasn't radiated, it is being radiated RIGHT NOW from everywhere. Space doesn't have a fixed volume, but energy has a fixed intensity over volume. So if the volume of space is expanding then the intensity of the energy is decreasing. The CMB weakens but the amount of energy being emitted by the origin of the CMB does not.

What you're confusing is the fact that the CMB is not a blast wave. The CMB is continuous energy release over an ever expanding volume.

Your question in regards to Hubble's expanding Universe isn't valid as this would have no implications on Hubble's expanding universe, this would be part of the associated framework contained within Hubble's Expanding Universe hypothesis.

I figured you had a background in the topic, but it appears the standard answer wasn't clear enough for you.

eratta: Where I said "The CMB is continuous energy release over an ever expanding volume."

I meant, The CMB is the sum total of all energy within the universe. As the universe expands the CMB "cools" due to volume but the total energy content never changes.

Basically, what you're talking about is a snapshot of what the Universe contained 600 BYA.

if we can look back in time do you think its possible to see our galaxy

We really need to look a few more hundred million years back to see the interesting stuff, for example, if we find stars that are too old/evolved to exist in that timeframe or none at all. I hope the next generation of space telescopes brings us within the critical limits.

no age. no size
next generation of telescopes will cause us to revise the age and size of the universe, then again and again.
eventually the narrow minded anal types will have to give up and realise that time and space are endless, even if we can not comprehend how.

given the expansion of space, there must be parts of space that lie beyond the visible horizon by now? What if the furthest back in time we could expect to look if we had the best telescope possible?

Some of the galaxies seen here look virtually as advanced as ours. Does this mean that they are of an age as ours? If that is so, the Big Bang is dead, as it should be.

if we can look back in time do you think its possible to see our galaxy

Yes but not from where we're sitting. You wouldn't be able to catch light originating from Earth/Sol long ago without a rebound of some sort off of a foreign object or not being on Earth/Sol.

RayCherry --> I can see your as cantankerous as ever. We cannot look back in time at all. Consider a simple case. We can see the Sun as it was about 8 minutes ago. If the Sun suddenly was sucked into a black hole it would continue to shine for 8 minutes before we could see it disappear. Similarly, the galaxies we see at the edge of the universe we are seeing as they were 13.2 billion light years ago. Its not like we are seeing back in time, its just that the light from the galaxy as it is today won't reach us for another 13.2 billion years.

The CMB is a different situation. Actually, its really not true that the temperature of the universe was completely uniform when the CMB was generated, because we can see tiny temperature variations in it today. This implies that different parts of the universe became transparent from stable atom combination sooner than others.

However I find very strange the assertion that the CMB is the sum total of the energy of the universe.