Hubble's Deepest Shot A Mystery

by Big Tex 9 Replies latest social current

• 

  Big Tex

  This is really interesting to me. What intrigues me the most is this quote:

  Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe Andrew Bunker, Exeter University

  The idea that physics could have changed over time is fascinating to me. There is so much we don't know about the universe. I hope they can upgrade Hubble enough to examine this some more.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3680944.stm Scientists studying the deepest picture of the Universe, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, have been left with a big poser: where are all the stars?

  The Ultra Deep Field is a view of one patch of sky built from 800 exposures.

  The picture shows faint galaxies whose stars were shining just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

  But the image's revelation that fewer stars than expected were being born at this time brings into question current ideas on cosmic evolution.

  For the first time, we at last have real data to address this final frontier - but we need more observations Richard Ellis, California Institute of Technology

  "Our results based on the Ultra Deep Field are very intriguing and quite a puzzle," says Dr Andrew Bunker, of Exeter University, UK, who led a team studying the new data.

  "They're certainly not what I expected, nor what most of the theorists in astrophysics expected."

  He is now urging the US space agency (Nasa) to proceed with a servicing mission to upgrade the orbital telescope so it can solve the mystery.

  A 'fried' Universe

  At issue is the timing of key events in the earliest stages of the Universe.

  Scientists believe the super-hot conditions that existed after the Big Bang eventually cooled sufficiently to allow protons, neutrons and electrons to form neutral atoms of hydrogen and helium.

  HUBBLE'S ULTRA DEEP FIELD It is centred on the constellation Fornax, next to the constellation Orion The image contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies It was taken using the ACS and Nicmos instruments Hubble needed 400 orbits to build the Ultra Deep Field observation Total time amounted to 11.3 days of continuous viewing The most distant light was detected at a rate of 1 photon per minute

  The transition also saw the cosmos plunge into darkness - the stars that could provide the light had yet to ignite.

  When they did, from infalling clouds of hydrogen and helium, the "dark ages" gave way to what has been dubbed the "cosmic renaissance".

  What is more, these hot, young stars produced intense ultraviolet radiation which "fried" the gas in the Universe - to produce the diffuse intergalactic plasma detectable today.

  But the Hubble Ultra Deep Field presents a problem for this story.

  When Bunker and colleagues measured the rate of star formation in the image's earliest galaxies, they found it was insufficient to create the levels of radiation needed to produce the intergalactic plasma.

  Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe Andrew Bunker, Exeter University

  "There is not enough activity to explain the re-ionisation of the Universe," Dr Bunker told the BBC. "Perhaps there was more action in terms of star formation even earlier in the history of the Universe - that's one possibility.

  "Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."

  Red search

  The Hubble data was supported by observations with the Keck telescope in Hawaii and the Gemini telescope in Chile.

  It has to be said, the Bunker assessment is not totally shared by all groups working in this area. Four other teams investigating the UDF data have put their own very different interpretations on what they see in the historic image.

  For example, the team headed by Dr Massimo Stiavelli, from the Space Telescope Science Institute, in Baltimore, US, believes the populations seen may well have been able to re-ionise the Universe, provided the stars were bigger and possessed much fewer heavier elements than those we see today.

  But what all astronomers believe is that to solve this puzzle, they need enhanced space-borne detectors that can better describe the long-wavelength light seen in the most distant stars.

  The Hubble telescope will get this capability if Nasa goes ahead with a servicing mission and installs an instrument known as the infrared WideField Camera 3.

  This is by no means certain, however, and astronomers may have to wait for the launch of Hubble's successor, the James Webb Telescope, early in the next decade.

  "For the first time, we at last have real data to address this final frontier - but we need more observations," said Dr Richard Ellis, of the California Institute of Technology, US, who is passionate in his support of a mission to upgrade Hubble.
• 

  Satanus

  I used to read the mags new scientist, scientific american, nature and a couple of others, not that i understood everything. But anyway, i used to very often run across phrases to the affect that new discoveries surprised them or messed up standard science. It would have been interesting to have saved all these conflicts to see if they were solved or integrated somehow, or just ignored. Oh well, it's still interesting.

  S
• 

  teejay

  I'm fascinated by this stuff, too. Reading of the immensity of time/space puts this life into perspective.
  
  I heard on the Discovery Channel a couple of weeks ago that they've decided to abandon Hubble in the next few years (or something like that). I hope they don't. That tool has been invaluable in opening doors/questions to how we got here.
• 

  Big Tex

  Oh, did they change their minds again? I thought I had read that they had yieled to public outcry and were going to keep it till 2009.

  I'm intrigued by the idea that something that we were taught to be never changing such as physics, could have in fact changed. If that's so, it makes me wonder if other established laws could also have at one time been different. Or is that getting into quantum physics?
• 

  Double Edge

  I'm intrigued by the idea that something that we were taught to be never changing such as physics, could have in fact changed. If that's so, it makes me wonder if other established laws could also have at one time been different.

  I'm wondering if perhaps "physics" itself hasn't changed, but our lack of understanding of it is more than meets the scientific eye. The understood physics of the 1500's was "elementary" compared to our "sophisticated" knowledge today. Think about what 500 years will bring. We too will look like "toddlers". Not trying to pull religion into this, but for me, this information confirms that there is indeed a Higher Intelligence out there.

  Facinating stuff...
• 

  Descender

  Looking at the model in the link above is a bit confusing; maybe I'm looking at it wrong. But if the big bang is still continuously expanding out from it's origin, why do the oldest stars and galaxies seem to be sitting on the outskirts of the youngest area, close to where I would think the youngest stars would still be forming.

  And if the big bang is still expanding our current universe, will it only cover a certain area before it fizzles out? (Kind of like a normal nuclear explosion only covers a certain area) Or, in theory, will the big bang keep on expanding forever? And, what is it overtaking? Is the explosion destroying other galaxies in older universes than ours that were created by another earlier explosion, or is it forever stretching out into nothingness, creating stars and galaxies along the way?
• 

  Satanus

  Descender

  if the big bang is still continuously expanding out from it's origin, why do the oldest stars and galaxies seem to be sitting on the outskirts of the youngest area, close to where I would think the youngest stars would still be forming.

  The way i understand it, is that it's a matter of deapth. The farhter away hubble is able to look, the farther back in time it sees. While the oldest and youngest stars may appear close together, the distance they are apart is great because of the deapth.

  For your other questions, the last i read, scientists weren't in agreement if it would keep expanding forever, reach stasis, evaporate, or eventually collapse into a big crunch.

  S
• 

  Big Tex

  I thought (scary proposition I know) that I remember reading that the expansion of the universe is actually gaining speed. Which again goes contrary to several leading theories.
• 

  Sunnygal41

  I'm intrigued by the idea that something that we were taught to be never changing such as physics, could have in fact changed. If that's so, it makes me wonder if other established laws could also have at one time been different. Or is that getting into quantum physics?

  Great subject, Tex........I, like you, am intrigued by science and the universe, etc............in my view, I think this thread only proves that the more we think we know, the more surprised we can be when we find out we didn't get it right.........I guess the best course in life is to not defend our "positions" too rigidly and just remain open and curious...........it's very Zen, don't you think?
• 

  Sunnygal41

  I thought (scary proposition I know)

  Awwww, Tex!!! That's why I love you so much.......cuz, you aren't afraid to not take yourself serious! LOL! You are an example for some of us hotheads here on JWD!