
L. Calcada / ESO
An artist's impression shows the young galaxy UDFy-38135539 gathering up the hydrogen and helium gas surrounding it and forming many young stars. Astronomers have determined that UDFy-38135539 is the most distant known galaxy.
Astronomers have confirmed that an incredibly faint galaxy in the constellation Fornax is the most distant known object in the universe, shining more than 13 billion light-years away and reflecting an era when stars were just beginning to emerge from a cosmic fog.
The galaxy, known as UDFy-38135539, is one of several super-distant objects picked out from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, the most sensitive snapshot ever taken of deep space. In time, astronomers may well spot objects that are even farther away, but this particular galaxy was the first of its type to go through the arduous process of having its measurements checked.
In fact, the astronomers behind the observations say they couldn't have seen UDFy-38135539 unless there were other, fainter galaxies nearby to help clear out the space around it. "Without this additional help, the light from the galaxy, no matter how brilliant, would have been trapped in the surrounding hydrogen fog, and we would not have been able to detect it," Durham University's Mark Swinbank said in a news release from the European Southern Observatory.
The ESO researchers, led by Matt Lehnert of the Observatoire de Paris, published their findings in this week's issue of the journal Nature. Those findings shed unprecedented light (so to speak) on a mysterious period in the development of the universe, about 600 million years after its big-bang origin, when the radiation of the first stars began clearing out the neutral hydrogen that filled the infant universe. That process, known as reionization, transformed the cosmos from an opaque haze to the mostly empty space we know today.
"Measuring the redshift of the most distant galaxy so far is very exciting in itself, but the astrophysical implications of this detection are even more important," Nicole Nesvadba of France's Institute d'Astrophysique Spatiale said. "This is the first time we know for sure that we are looking at one of the galaxies that cleared out the fog which had filled the very early universe."
Further observations are likely to flesh out the scientific story of how the universe emerged from its dark ages.

G. Illingworth / UCO-Lick and UCSC / NASA / ESA / HUDF09
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field shows several candidates for breaking observational distance records, but confirming those distances is difficult. The inset picture highlights the galaxy UDFy-38135539, which is the farthest observed object to have its distance confirmed.
How the measurement was done
The story of UDFy-38135539 begins with last year's release of the latest Hubble Ultra Deep Field imagery, captured using the Hubble Space Telescope's brand-new Wide Field Camera 3. Astronomers checked the spectral signatures of thousands of faint objects in the picture, looking for the telltale signs of extreme redshift -- that is, a shift in the spectrum that is linked to how far away an object is in our expanding universe.
The ESO astronomers found several galaxies that had their light shifted so far to the red side of the spectrum that they knew those galaxies had to be incredibly distant. Numerically speaking, their redshift had to be greater than 8. But how much greater?
To figure out the precise redshift number, the astronomers booked 16 hours of time on the ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile, which is equipped with an ultra-sensitive infrared spectroscopic instrument called SINFONI. After weeks of data analysis, the team ran the numbers and came up with a redshift of 8.55. That meant the galaxy was farther away than the most distant previously known galaxy (redshift 6.96) as well as the most distant previously known object (a gamma-ray burst at redshift 8.2).
That redshift means the light left the galaxy when the 600-million-year-old universe was in its era of reionization. But based on the models for the development of galaxies, UDFy-38135539 would not have had enough power at that time to clear out enough empty space for the light to shine through as it did. That's why scientists suspect that other, undetected galaxies were helping to clear out the bubble of space.
In a Nature commentary, Michele Trenti, an astronomer at the University of Colorado's Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy, hailed the results as "a fundamental leap forward in observational cosmology." He noted that there was "robust statistical confidence" that the team's interpretation was correct, with only a 0.1 percent chance that the interpretation of the galaxy's spectrum was incorrect.
Trenti said the study "opens up exciting proects for spectroscopy of high-redshift objects" -- not only using the data currently at hand, but also drawing upon future studies to be conducted by Hubble and its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, as well as the European Extremely Large Telescope.
Q&A with the research team's leader
The leader of the research team, Matt Lehnert of the Observatoire de Paris, answered a couple of my follow-up questions in an e-mail exchange:
Cosmic Log: Could you explain why this observation is so difficult? Of course the faintness of the galaxy is one of the big issues, but I understand that the high redshift is another big issue.
Matt Lehnert: You are correct, it is not only the faintness. It becomes increasingly difficult because the night sky becomes brighter (which causes more background noise), contains a plethora of emission lines caused mainly by OH molecules in the upper atmosphere of the earth, and light is increasingly absorbed due to many molecules and other complex interactions. We cannot overcome all of these problems. Light lost is light lost. Having a very efficient spectrograph helps.
SINFONI is certainly that. Perhaps the best currently available. You also have to have good data reduction software. It's not very romantic, but removing those night sky lines is tricky -- they are strong, much, much stronger than the signal, and they vary with time. Because they are bright, they add lots of noise, but much of that "additional" noise is due to improper removal. My colleague, Nicole Nesvadba, has literally developed an excellent set of tools for extracting the most out of these data.
Q: Could you please also talk about the significance of the conclusions you reached on the galaxy's place in the epoch of reionization. I understand that the luminosity from the galaxy alone wouldn't have been enough to allow the redshifted photons to escape, and that the assumption is that there were surrounding smaller galaxies that aided in "carving" out a suitable bubble of ionized hydrogen gas. Does this fit with the existing models for galaxy formation during that epoch, or does it rule out any models that theorists have come up with? What do scientists hope to gain by learning more about the reionization epoch?
A: Well ... I always believe that models should be tested with results! Astronomy is still an empirical science and so much of what we model is based on observational results.
The underlying physics is very complicated. For example, we really do not have a robust picture of how individual stars form. As you might imagine, since galaxies are made up of stars, and are to some extent defined by these stars, it is difficult to understand how galaxies form without this essential understanding of how stars form. Having said all of that, our current models do in fact predict that reionization was mostly due to numerous faint objects and that the first places to be reionized were the ones that had higher densities of objects. Was it a surprise for me? Yes. Was it a surprise for all astronomers? No way!
What we hope to learn is, what types of galaxies were really responsible and in fact, were only galaxies responsible? There are other ideas, mini-quasars -- small black holes that accrete matter and contribute, to decaying particles, to several other [ideas that have been] at least proposed if not all that plausible.
We would like to know how reionization proceeded. Was it in fits and starts? Did it start in regions of the highest densities and then proceed to the lowest? How long did it take? How did this gas cool to form the first galaxies, and how did galaxy formation change because the universe was reionized?
These first galaxies literally changed the state of the universe. It was most neutral -- composed mainly of hydrogen and helium atoms -- to mostly ionized between galaxies -- composed mostly of protons, electrons, and helium nuclei (although helium re-ionization came later at lower redshifts).
It is a great challenge to understand how did these humble galaxies, humble because they are small, low-mass galaxies, change the state of the universe? It's an exciting puzzle and a challenge to our understanding of physics.
Correction for 11 p.m. ET: I originally wrote that the galaxy was seen as it was 600,000 years after the big bang, but the figure is actually 600 million years. Sorry for putting the decimal point in the wrong place, and thanks to those who pointed out the error.
In addition to Lehnert, Nesvadba and Swinbank, the authors of "Spectroscopic Confirmation of a Galaxy at Redshift z=8.6" include Jean-Gabriel Cuby, Simon Morris, Benjamin Clement, C.J. Evans, M.N. Bremer and Stephane Basa.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.


CORRECTION: (sorry)
PS - I also tend to believe that matter is composed of both bound energy and bound space, and that when matter is converted to free energy, matter is also converted to free space. This is where the free space in our Universe comes from, and it serves as the basis for the SPATIAL expansion or inflation of our Universe. - Rick Carter
This conversation, other than the religitwit input, is highly enlightening. Reading the variation in viewpoints from both a structural and abstract point of view should give all of us a chance to enhance how we see this most basic of questions.
There is no gravity. The earth sucks.
Still trying to figure this out. If the early universe went through an early period of expansion at superliminal speeds, and is now 156 billion light years across (read that somewhere) , we could only see a small section of our local universe limited to the light cone defined by our 13.7 billion year approximation of the age of our present universe. How could we possibly see the " other side " of the universe if inflation is correct?
Sorry about the duplication, just figuring out about the discussion pages. Thanks for the replies yesterday. Will figure it all out , right after I figure out quantum gravity and how women think!
If the red-shift z = 8.5549 + or - 0.0002 when extrapolated to distance is 13.4 Billion Light-years 0.0268 Billion Light-years, the closest to the "birth time" we can get from that is 0.0268 Billion Light-years keeping within the margine of error. From where did the 600 million years come?
We can't even fathom what is out there with the technology we currently posses. If the universe is infinite then there could have been multiple Big Bangs through out space. The Universe as we know it could actually be a galaxy in it's own Universe.
If the red-shift z = 8.5549 0.0002 when extapolated to distance yeilds 13.4 Billion light years 0.0268 billion light years, from where did the figure of 600 milliom come?
Last log entry...does anyone know where I can buy a "Good" used Tardus ? No more than 5 gazilion AU,s on the odometer ?
Man you guys are stupid. You do realize that the big bang "theory" is just that; some made up theory to try and disprove God. Man is just too stuborn and stuck in their sin to acknowledge the fact that there IS a God who CREATED the universe and CREATED us as human beings. Do you really think that somthing even as complecated as the human eye just happened by chance?
Jeff, it is actually you that is not very smart. To point at everything around you and say "God did it" is an absurd statement. Point and case: the human eye is not very complicated when compared to other species. Do you realize the human eye only has three color receptors and certain shrimp have twelve? It would be in your best interest to watch a science show or two and do some research before spouting off your nonsense.
here's an idea... how about we spend less time/money/resources figuring out the "furthest point in the universe" and use that time to address more vital issues within our proximity. like reducing our carbon footprint? exploring the unexplored depths of our own oceans? curing cancer? as fascinating as the universe is- we have much more pressing issues ZERO lightyears away.
And eventually, when we get everything fine and dandy, right here on Earth, the sun will expand, melt the Earth, and destroy our really nice society, and all traces we ever existed.
The problems of which you speak will not be solved by any generation. Even when one is solved, another appears. There will never be a perfect time to take man to the stars. We just have to go anyway.
But we need to scout out a good place to put a restaurant =D
This discussion has progressed into a red spectrum that has finally entered that fog surrounding the galaxy pictured 13 million light years away and therefore beyond my vision. I will wait on the next telescope.
Actually, Einstein was not onboard with Quantum Mechanics, he spent the reaming years of his life trying to disprove it and come up with an alternate solution, every paper her wrote on trying to disprove it, EPR for example, was tested to be wrong and Quantum Mechanics to be right.
As for the Big Bang, he (and the rest of science) had just assumed the universe was static, but relativity kept telling him is was once much smaller in the past and was expanding, so he introduced “The Cosmological Constant” to cancel out the expansion. Once Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding, Einstein removed the cosmological constant, saying it was his greatest blunder. Many are now calling Dark Energy, The Cosmological Constant as basically, Einstein did predict it and his old calculations basically covers it.
Yes, Clocking Devices, they are currently being developed by the US military to cloak planes and ships from radar. Radar, photons (light) in the microwave range are bent around an item and are therefore not visible; I have seen many working demonstrations of this technology and they will be deployed in the field within the next few years. Because it works with photons, they can use this technology and easily scale it down to the visible light range and the soldiers would have “Active Camo”
Clocking device links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaking_device
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cloaking+device&hl=en&prmd=vi&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=zo_JTMSFOtOonQf5p9D-Dw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CC0QqwQwAQ
http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&rlz=&q=cloaking+device&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=zo_JTMSFOtOonQf5p9D-Dw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5&ved=0CDsQsAQwBA
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100320-25999.html
Yes, Meta materials, materials manipulated and built from the atoms up, Clocking Devices are an example of Meta materials; nano tubes and Bucky Balls are another (Yes, nano tubes exist nature but are too small to use commercially, using Meta Material technology they are making sheets of these, again, the US military are the big funders of this for super strong armour)
And yes, teleportation, look further up this thread for more info.
The Space Elevator is going well, there is an X Prize type of contest every year for the different components, I think it was last year someone won the prize for the tether using, surprising enough, meta materials.
No, the transistors are so small now that quantum fluctuations must be taken into consideration to prevent data corruption. Most high-speed links are using fibre optics (light) and again, quantum fluctuations must also be taken into consideration. The next generation of computers and high speed links will use individual photons to send information and quantum physics will play a huge aspect of it. The US military is using this technology right now for ultra secure encryption. In quantum mechanics, 1) something does not really exist as we know it until it is observed. 2) Once you observe it, you have changed it (both by collapsing the wave and by adding energy to it) so, if anyone is eavesdropping on the message, they would know within a few bits.
I just read the first and fourth articles you quoted, and some of the articles on the first "Google" search-return page, and then to a lot of "You Tube" videos on cloaking devices - there are quite a large number - and then to a lot of "Scientific Tuesdays" videos where I learnt (amongst other interesting things) how to make three differently-coloured, coloured flames (white, blue and violet, and green) from household items that you can buy from a grocery store - they look amazing, are extremely easy and inexpensive to make, and would be very good to have burning at night, with candles and incense, I would think? Very magical and Satanic!
One idea for a cloaking device that I didn't see, which could be made with present technology, is my idea that I got from the 2007 semi-animated science-fiction movie "A Scanner Darkly".
The idea I had is to use e-paper (which can be made in colour). E-paper uses very little power since it only uses energy to change colour, and uses reflected light, not like a computer screen of any kind (LCD. OLED, LED, etc.). Using tiny web-cam cameras set into an invisibility-cloak made of e-paper, you could capture images of what is on one side of you and display them on the other side of you, using a small computer, and using fairly low battery power. They would only be still images - i.e. a succession of snapshots, not video, so it would not take a powerful computer to process this information and the images would not need to be retained in RAM - a laptop processor and memory could handle these tasks quite easily.
It wouldn't give perfect invisibility, especially if you were looking at the person in, say, a shopping mall, and you already knew they that were there, but it would be highly deceptive, especially in natural settings, as in the movie "Predator", and in open spaces.
While moving, because e-paper does not refresh instantly, it would not be so effective, though it would still be extremely good camouflage in most situations. But when you stopped moving you would blend in almost perfectly. The images may overlap, but people tend to compensate for what they see and instead see what they think they should be seeing - this is a well-known fact of neurology and psychology - ninety percent of what people see is what is projected onto the world by their own imaginations of what is there!
So someone who has access to these technologies and a little bit of money (not much) and a bit of a knack for playing around with software programs and external devices - go ahead and make one! You will see it is better in practice than it should be in theory.
Also, if you used this idea in space - as in "Star Trek"- no problems! I presume the cloaking devices used by the Romulans, and other space-faring peoples, have the ability to fool observers in relation to non-visible wavelengths as well, though, or they would all be using my idea ( as e-ink can be applied to most solid surfaces, such as ordinary paper or metal or plastics) no problems there! All you would need is good black and white contrast, which e-ink already does have. Colour e-paper cannot yet be folded, but it is easily flexible enough to use for a wearable cloaking device, and it would also be able to hide a tank - as I saw in the news that Britain is reported to have attempted to do ....which would make conventional warfare, from now on, look a bit like "Star Trek".
Actually, wasn't this experiment tried once before ..."The Philadelphia Experiment", I think it was called???
Interesting thread, with the exception of the religion nonsense. There is one question that I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer to concerning the observation of light from an object approximately 13 billion years old.
It is my understanding that the expansion rate of the universe (apparent motion of the galaxies due to universe expansion) is a small fraction of the speed of light. I have also read that our galaxy is much less than 13 billion years old. In order for us to observe light that left a position 13 billion years ago, we have to physically be 13 billion light years from that position.
The speed of light is, according to my understanding, the fastest anything can travel. How then did we get to a position that allows us to observe light from a galaxy 13 billion years old when everything we are made of existed in the vicinity of that galaxy when the light was emitted? The concept of being able to observe very distant galaxies in all parts of the universe adds complications to the problem but until I can understand this simple concept, addressing the complicated issues seems premature.
I appreciate any help with this problem (except God made it so) that might be available.
Tony, their theory is that 'nothing' is faster then the speed of light.
At the big bang, that is what there was - 'nothing'.
So to explain away this bump in the road they invented the theory that light can travel faster than nothing. At the big bang, the universe expanded to where it is now within a fraction of a second.
Thinking outside the box, is it possible that the photons, on their long trip to us, are slowed by cumulative gravitaional effects along the way?
I think of a photon traveling through the universe, passing by or through dark matter\energy, galaxys, stars, etc.
The 'tug' it feels from the cumulative gravity(or passing) wants to 'stretch' the wavelength slowing the photon just enough so that by the time it reaches us it has shifted toward the red spectrum?
The closer the source the less slowing effect and vice versa.
Have we actually measured the light speed from distant galaxies and\or stars?
In this thought, the universe would not be expanding at all.
Of course I understand that I may be(and probably are) completely wrong about the spectrum shift on slowing photons.
But if wave length changes(or stretches) as light slows then why could this not be as viable a theory as the big bang?
Could be that 13 billion years or more could represent just the lifespan of a galaxy, or we should be seeing its end stages and not neccesarily its beginning, What if there's another 13 billion years of space-time beyond that?
Or if that galaxy is on the other side of being flung out from a central universal big bang in all directions there would likely be another 13 billion years if its moving away from us from where we are now viewing it., as for galaxies like our own we should be moving through space in the opposite direction detecing other galaxies redshifts moving away from us as we look toward them, as well as the galaxies behind us that might be blueshifted moving toward us or even slightly so with a lesser redshift.
But that would take a sky survey of known galaxies redshifts plotted on a map of the universe that possibly would indicate just where the Big Bang occurred.