
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.


Big Bang Theory? I love that show.
un f in believable. just how far can we go. it gets farther and farther every day.
cu and the astroplanetary sciences are simply amazing..
If the Big Bang was, then 13 billion light years in on direction says we are better off to stop paying taxes and start enjoying this Blue Marble. The best we could hope for is years (Not Light Years) away and therefore unreachable! Science is so remote sometimes...Let it Be.
And this is significant because??? I can see the news of the discovery of an earth-like planet found at less than 50 light years away as being significant (perhaps the great grandchildren of a child born today could have a the faintest hope to ever reach it), but an object 17 zillion miles away doesn't even make it into our dreams.
You are obviously not a science buff.
If we study this, we can gain more insight into how our own galaxy formed. There are practical applications to advances in physics.
The universe simply IS. Move on already.
I am not an expert by any means having been exposed to only basic college physics and beginning astronomy, but my imagination sees it posible for time to be a human invention as well as the possibility for matter/non-matter to travel faster than light.
I've often wondered; if space is curved how come it doesn't roll off the giant turtles back?
I was there for the Big Bang, it was delectable.
as was I. it was most grand, most grand indeed.
I prefer the restuarant at the end of the universe.
Looks great. I always loved astronomy. How much is 13 billions years in seconds. :)
Hi...you bet cha...God created the universe and Russia and me. The devil had sex with Cain and made minorities.
Witches are in league with the devil....and Democrats/liberals. O'Donnel was a witch once and then she saw the light..praise Jesus...she trasneffered to Republicanism and the truth.
Visit the creation museum in Tennessse where Alley Oop is seen riding a dinosaur.
What does politics have to do with billions and billions of light years and keep religion out of this. Religion didn't create the Universe, God did and God didn't create religion, man did. Plus Russia and the U.S. and the rest of the world weren't even around until man decided to box people in. And don't get me started on witch lady and her broom. You, you Republican. Brought to you by an INDEPENDENT, and without us the other parties would not be in power every other term.
I have a simple minded question someone may be able to answer. Its baffled me for years. Unless the earth were at the center of the universe, (which we know is most assuredly not true) how can you see the redshift in everything out there. Isn't it probable that there are objects that are expanding away from the center of the universe which is severely skewed to our position? Hence you would observe no redshift. It seems to me that you could chart everythings movement and vector back toward the center of outward expansion. Maybe thats been done, and I've just missed it. I have to admit, my only education on the subject has come from the Discovery channel and articles like this one. In short, how do they know that this distant galaxy is the most distant object? And if it is the most distant object, would that not mean that this thing is in line with the center of the universe? I hope someone way smarter than me reads this and responds. Very interesting stuff.
Think about raison bread dough. Now take any raison: every other raison in the dough will go away from that particular raison (red-shift) when the dough rises. If you are sitting on that raison and looking outwards, you will think you're the center of that dough. Same with any planet or star in the expanding universe.
The way we have come to the concept of the big bang is simply by measuring the expansion rate, and reverse this backwards to go to the beginning. That's how they come to an estimated age of the universe of around 14 billion years. Also, when the universe expands, it cools, or if you compress it as we are doing when reversing, it becomes hotter. When you go closer than about 300,000 years from the big bang, the temperature becomes so high that atoms can not longer exist. You have a cloud of ionized hydrogen that does not allow light to escape. So we will never actually see (visible light) the situation closer than those 300,000 years, although we know pretty much what happens. We know what happens based on re-creating those very high energies in the various particle accelerators like CERN or the Fermi accelerator in Chicago.
Alan,
600,000 years is a typo, correct? It should be 600,000,000 years. I don't think a star can form in 600,000 years, let alone a galaxy.
Can you clarify, are they suprised because they expected it to be hidden in the fog? My opinion is that the really big suprise is going to be that the big bang theory is wrong.
Yup, you're right, it was a typo.
I think Lehnert was surprised that the galaxy was visible even though its brilliance shouldn't have allowed it to shine through the fog, but as he mentioned in the Q&A, other astronomers had suggested that the first places to clear in the fog would have been places where there were groups of galaxies hanging around together. So I suppose it wasn't a surprise to those folks.
I'm no astrophysicist but if the big band happened 13.7 billion years ago and the farthest galaxy is 13 billion light years away, then the galaxy's speed relative to us is about the speed of light. If that were so then the red shift would be almost 100%. How can we see this using those assumptions?
The expansion is slower than the speed of light? Good question though. I know...it is the devil's work and liberals.
Yes, this is something that's hard to wrap your head around. Inflationary big bang theory envisions that the universe started out as a single point in higher-dimensional space, but also suggests that the universe had a dramatic inflation very early in its history that kicked off the expansion. As a result, there are objects that are farther away than they would be if they just moved away from each other at the speed of light. Here are a couple of links to additional information:
Beyond the Big Bang
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6392268
What is the inflation theory?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html
Has anyone tied the idea of inflation to the 11th dimensional brane theory? I keep thinking that the collision might have been more of an ongoing event, and inflation might have been caused by the actual impact itself. As in, over a larger area. There would then be a beginning of the impact, a duration during which we see the effects of inflation, and then a moment where it ceased, which is why inflation stopped. That would be the end of the "big bang" event. Like two sheets in the wind, gently bumping into each other, then parting.
Shouldn't you Tea Party Republicans be on another post debating maybe demons and witches and where exactly is the edge of the earth and have they found Noah's ark?
We know you GED grads hate science , so stay off these scientific sites and stay within your realm of hocus pocus.
According to Stephen Hawking, the BB was an inevitable consequence of gravity. Therefore, it would appear to me that the "clock" WAS running prior to the Bang!
"Astromers"? Proofread, please. ASTRONOMERS.
Also, I've read some of the responses to this point, and I must say, there is a wealth of misinformation here. First of all, just ignore all the posts by all the Jesus freaks, Bible thumpers, Creationists, and self-appointed mouthpieces of imagined gods. Once you do that; the "Big Bang", though a bit of a misnomer (more of a Big Inflation), did in fact happen, approximately 14.3 billion years ago. It was a quantum reorganization of all that is and ever was in a single point of space-time. Not an easy concept to grasp, because we think within our own human experience. (Also why we imagine invisible human looking supernatural creators in the sky).
About the early Universe expanding" faster than speed of light"; Um, no. It's a cumulative effect of inflation / expansion, and not to be confused with the parameters by which we measure distance and speed today. The rules were different if you will. For example, if it takes 5 seconds for something to cross a sphere that's 10 feet across, it's traveling at 2 feet per second. If it takes the same thing 5 seconds to go across a sphere that's 20 feet across, it's doubled it's speed. But we're measuring in feet, a standard unit ... the early universe had none. Each unit was inflating and expanding simultaneously.
There's more, but I fear it's wasted here....
Why do people who don't know what they are talking about try to act like experts? I'm no expert but I do know enough to know you don't know much about the subject. (That's a lot of no's).
You comments aren't wasted, they are waste.
Why do you find it necessary to insult and belittle those of us who believe in God? I have no problem with science. In fact, this article and the findings it discusses are fascinating to me. I don't have a very strong science background, however, so most of it is over my head. I'm not opposed to learning about it, though. Please refrain from your derogatory comments. We don't do that to you, do we?
Maybe not you personally. But there are plenty examples of how religion has persecuted people of science in history. There's bound to be some resentment.
Remember Bruno.
I wonder which part of "infinite" these guys have trouble getting their mind around. This is as relevant as the flat earth theory.
How do you write that, read it, and think "yeah, that makes sense..."????? How exactly does one get infinite size into zero space? Oh, right, no one knows. Man, that is one rock-solid theory if I ever heard one! Someday people will read about the Big Bang theory and laugh and say "wow, how did anyone ever buy that crap?!".
Like a black hole..called singularity where atoms and particles are crushed to nothing and gravity is in a loop of infinite downward spiral.
Look at earth...a speck in a corner of an insignificat galaxy, where it's smartest lifeforms have occupied the earth for only a fraction of the time other creatures have ruled, like the dinosaur. Extincition knows no time frame and humans may go away soon and noone will ever know they existed.
Earth is not really a kind spot, where almost all species to ever have lived are extinct. Mankind has come precariously close in plagues and we could be dust tomorrow save a stray comet.
In other words we ain't shi*
If this finding holds up, we are getting closer than ever of finding the point in the universe where it first blew its top, a starting point of the Big Bang and our Observable universe.
If this is the farthest, then what are the smaller, farther away spots in the picture?
That's an artist's conception, so those are other galaxies in the neighborhood. The artwork is just meant to help you visualize the galaxy. The Hubble picture is the one that reflects actual imagery... and in that one, the galaxy is just one little red speck.
Fox News says the earth is 6000 years old. Global warming is a hoax because the earth has been going through cycles for millions oy years. But wait , if the earth is 6000 years old how could it go through cycles millions of years old?
This is as funny as when Paul Harvey spent and hour one day trashing evolution theory and then went to a commercial where he said "cockroaches have been around for millions of years and have "evolved" to where they are almost immue to.."
One theory for the ditto heads and another to sell bug spray. Just like a right winger...throw out their beliefs for a chance to make a buck.
We are riding out a giant fireworks burst and how long before it fades out ? Scripture gets interestingly cosmical were it says...I am the light that shines in the darkness and the darkness comprehendith it not..."We are doing a better job of it than the flat earthers...
Its interesting that our scientists can determine billions of light years in distance so accurately so quickly. We are talking about time travel, so what about the time it takes to calculate the time travel? Most of what we find now is laready billions of years past. So that means what we see don't exist anymore. Do I make any sense?
You are correct. If we see something that's 12 billion light years away from us, that means that it took 12 billion years for the light emitted by that object to reach us. What has happened to that object since it emitted that light 12 billion years ago: we see that happening right now, but always 12 billion years late (actually more and more since that object is moving away from us).
the universe was created from a single thought..there are other demensions and universes out there the same as ours..dual ones.
Fascinating piece. Thanks. But the other commenters are correct: it's not 600,000 years but 600 million. Click on the link to the press release.
Correct, I was out of the office or I would have picked up on that error before now ... from you and other sharp-eyed (and sharp-witted) commenters. Sorry about the goof.