The Hubble Deep Field - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Cheese · 01-08-2008, 05:00 PM

Took this out of my other post comparing the earth to the largest star...fantastic video if you havent seen it...enlarge this to fit your full screen and turn up the sound.

The Hubble

evman150 · 01-08-2008, 05:28 PM

That was enjoyable. I like seeing this astronomy stuff on here!

I just disagree with the narrator in that video saying "this is 78 billion light years"...well no it isn't. That is just one minuscule portion of the sky.

photon · 01-08-2008, 05:42 PM

Cool video!

Here's a larger resolution version of that image. I won't link to the 60+MB jpeg

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2...mats/print.jpg

arsenal · 01-08-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Cool video!

Here's a larger resolution version of that image. I won't link to the 60+MB jpeg

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2...mats/print.jpg

Oh come on!! where is your sense of adventure?

But I have to say.. that video was awesome! Makes you feel rather small and insignificant.

Delthefunky · 01-08-2008, 06:10 PM

Wow, I always respected how big the universe was but this puts it in a little more perspective. Thing is, this image still only captures a grain of the sky. Real cool to fathom.

McG · 01-08-2008, 07:42 PM

what is incredible is that although these images are the best that can be done today...when the new telescope goes into orbit in 2010 the pictures will be even better.

unbelievable!

Dan02 · 01-08-2008, 08:43 PM

The Hubble is a ridiculously cool telescope. I want one.

prarieboy · 01-08-2008, 10:19 PM

Well that is really impressive. I know next to nothing about astronamy so it's nice to see things like that on here.

I would like to know one thing though, if the image is 78 billion light years away isn't the image a picture of that portion of the sky as it was 78 billion light years ago??

Pardon my lack of knowledge but hey, if you want to build a canoe out of cedar, I'm your man.

evman150 · 01-08-2008, 10:34 PM

The image isn't 78 billion light years away. It's maybe....10 (Closer to five? I'm not really sure)...or something close to that number. And yes that is what it looked like 10ish billion years ago.

Farthest away we can (theoretically) see is the age of the universe, some 13.7ish billion light years. Everything beyond that is lost forever to us, never to be seen. It is said to be beyond the farthest lookback time.

Here's a rather useless link for someone without the necessary physical and astronomical background, but the bit on different distance measures is alright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distanc...28cosmology%29

Any other cosmology/astronomy questions, I'm your guy.

Stumptown · 01-08-2008, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prarieboy

I would like to know one thing though, if the image is 78 billion light years away isn't the image a picture of that portion of the sky as it was 78 billion light years ago??

Yes, it is. And that, really, is why the image is important. It offers a glimpse of what the universe consisted of, and the way it was expanding, at that very early stage. I think the makers of this piece focused on the size scale because it's easier to communicate visually, but leaving out the time scale is almost misleading.

evman150 · 01-08-2008, 10:43 PM

Size and time have nothing to do with each other. Distance and time are the notions that are coupled.

maverickeastwood · 01-09-2008, 12:19 AM

78 billion light years across??? That means it has a border? Whats beyond that? Theres a question

evman150 · 01-09-2008, 12:57 AM

What is beyond that? That question is like what philosophers call a category error. "What lies on the outside of everything?" How can there be anything beyond everything? That statement contradicts itself and is thus a category error.

The universe is borderless and centreless. Trying to conceptualize the "shape" of the universe is not really possible. You can look at all the hypercubes you want, aint gonna help you conceptualize an isotropic four dimensional universe.

Here is a gedankenexperiment to attempt to help you imagine the difficulty involved:

Imagine you are on the surface of a (expanding - fwiw) beachball. Does the surface of the beachball have a border? Does the surface of the beachball have a centre? Bring this example up from 2d\3d to 3d\4d and you have what our universe is. A three dimensional entity wrapped around a fourth dimension, no edge, no centre.

corporatejay · 01-09-2008, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

What is beyond that? That question is like what philosophers call a category error. "What lies on the outside of everything?" How can there be anything beyond everything? That statement contradicts itself and is thus a category error.

The universe is borderless and centreless. Trying to conceptualize the "shape" of the universe is not really possible. You can look at all the hypercubes you want, aint gonna help you conceptualize an isotropic four dimensional universe.

Here is a gedankenexperiment to attempt to help you imagine the difficulty involved:

Imagine you are on the surface of a (expanding - fwiw) beachball. Does the surface of the beachball have a border? Does the surface of the beachball have a centre? Bring this example up from 2d\3d to 3d\4d and you have what our universe is. A three dimensional entity wrapped around a fourth dimension, no edge, no centre.

yes, except the beach ball is filling space, what is the universe expanding to?

Dan02 · 01-09-2008, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corporatejay

yes, except the beach ball is filling space, what is the universe expanding to?

Always wondered that as well. If the universe at one point didn't exist, where did it expand into??? If we managed to get to the theoretical edge of the universe, what's on the other side?

And as far as i can tell there isn't a satisfactor answer out there that the layperson can understand.

maverickeastwood · 01-09-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evman150

What is beyond that? That question is like what philosophers call a category error. "What lies on the outside of everything?" How can there be anything beyond everything? That statement contradicts itself and is thus a category error.

The universe is borderless and centreless. Trying to conceptualize the "shape" of the universe is not really possible. You can look at all the hypercubes you want, aint gonna help you conceptualize an isotropic four dimensional universe.

Here is a gedankenexperiment to attempt to help you imagine the difficulty involved:

Imagine you are on the surface of a (expanding - fwiw) beachball. Does the surface of the beachball have a border? Does the surface of the beachball have a centre? Bring this example up from 2d\3d to 3d\4d and you have what our universe is. A three dimensional entity wrapped around a fourth dimension, no edge, no centre.

I was thinking more in a scientific/tangible sense. As stated in the post previous to this, the beachball, as it expands, occupies a volume. To say no edge, no centre would than dictate that the measurement of 78 billion light years means nothing. To give a measurement must mean there is a distance from one point to another.

I'll ask this than, if the distance of the universe is 78 billion light years across...what is beyond that point? Incomprehensible. There is one error in the philosophical sense. To say "Anything beyond everything" means that it is known that "everything" is around us, Is this true? We can't be certain of that. Interesting train of thought that will eventually make ones head blow up

evman150 · 01-09-2008, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan02

Always wondered that as well. If the universe at one point didn't exist, where did it expand into??? If we managed to get to the theoretical edge of the universe, what's on the other side?

And as far as i can tell there isn't a satisfactor answer out there that the layperson can understand.

There is no "theoretical edge". Just like there's no edge of the beachball.

It expanded into the "fourth dimension".

Like I said, it's basically impossible to conceptualize.

What does it expand into? I guess the best answer would be itself. I wish I had a thought experiment for you, but I don't.

evman150 · 01-09-2008, 04:06 AM

The 78 billion number's analogue in the 2d/3d example would be the circumference of the beach ball I guess. Pretty lacking answer, I know.

And yes the anything beyond everything statement is question begging. We have to assume we know of everything though. Everything points to that fact. And even if there are "other universes" there is zero evidence of any causal influence on our universe, to the point that they can be pretty much ignored in any discussion. Without a causal link, it does not matter if there exists other universes at all. For all intents and purposes, "everything" constitutes everything that has a causal link to anything else. Anything beyond that fails to be part of the "everything", I guess it has its own "everything". Now I'm running into semantical issues here. Contradictions due to language problems everywhere. This is really confusing material.

There is no other side because there are no sides. There is no edge because there's no edge. There is no outside the universe because there is no inside the universe.

You cannot ascribe properties to things unable to have those properties ascribed to them. You cannot make the colour red "smell like vinegar". You cannot give smell to something unable to be ascribed a smell. Etc. Etc. Etc.

maverickeastwood · 01-09-2008, 04:16 AM

These kind of discussion also has the company of the other age old question..."where did we come from"? Where did existence come from"? In religion, it is said that "God" has no beginning and no end, which is scientifically impossible. To exist, there must be a beginning and an end (again, if it's tangible, it exists). Oh boy, here we go. Good thing I bought a bottle of Tylenol.

evman150 · 01-09-2008, 04:27 AM

I don't know, I think religion and this part of astronomy can be decoupled. Early universe cosmology? Definitely coupled to religion. The benchmark model of cosmology? I think religion can stay out of the discussion.

For the record, I call myself an atheist, but really we don't know. What we do know (approximated by) 100% is that every single religion on this planet is supremely moronic and deserving of any derision it gets. To think they know answers to questions even now we have no hope of answering is the height of human arrogance and ignorance.

That is the real reason the first cause argument is useless in a lot of discussions about religion. The first cause is definitely a problem. May it be a "god" that started it all? Maybe. But it sure the hell wasn't your god. You're taking the 1 in 10^10^10^10E10000 shot, I'm taking the field. I like my chances. And you look like a moron.

This, by the way, is the source of my (well publicized on this site) disdain for religion.

Of note: By "you" I mean collective you, not anybody inparticular.