| |
Main
Date: 13 Oct 2006 20:53:11
From: Ioannis
Subject: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as we
wanted, what would we see?
Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we looked
deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the light
from the big bang, perhaps?
Thanks,
--
Ioannis
-------
The best way to predict reality, is to know exactly what you DON'T want.
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 01:47:46
From: Craig Franck
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
"Ioannis" wrote
> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as we
> wanted, what would we see?
If you had an arbitrarily large space telescope and exposure time, I
believe what you would ultimately be resolving is large numbers of
dwarf galaxies coming together to form larger galaxies, similar to
what you see in the recent Hubble photo of the spider galaxy:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0614a.jpg
These would be highly redshifted at 10+ (The farther back you go, the
faster the redshifting increases per unit of time.)
IIRC, these farthest galaxies would have originally been about 1 billion
light years away, but the light has taken 13 billion years to reach us
due to cosmic expansion.
If you had an unlimited amount of time, I believe super-deep fields
would resolve more and more mature galaxies as the chaos of
galaxy formation dimmed out of view, so we would only see galaxies
that were closer and closer to us at the time of first formation. (This
may not be correct, but it seems intuitively true if it is going to end
up being just the local and Virgo clusters that are visible.)
> Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we
> looked
> deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the
> light
> from the big bang, perhaps?
I don't believe you can see past recombination at BB+ 380,000 years
since it's a wall of scattered radiation.
--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 02:58:16
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
Craig Franck wrote:
>
> If you had an arbitrarily large space telescope and exposure time, I
> believe what you would ultimately be resolving is large numbers of
> dwarf galaxies coming together to form larger galaxies, similar to
> what you see in the recent Hubble photo of the spider galaxy:
>
And the redshift would render the "optical" arbitrarily large space
telescope and exposure time unsuitable.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 17:00:30
From: Mike L'Mao
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
"Craig Franck" <craig.franck@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:6lXXg.56$Z46.19@trndny05...
> "Ioannis" wrote
>
>> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
>> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
>> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as
>> we
>> wanted, what would we see?
No one knows for sure. And it's a mute question because it's not possible.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 22:06:09
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
Ioannis wrote:
> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as we
> wanted, what would we see?
>
> Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we looked
> deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the light
> from the big bang, perhaps?
>
> Thanks,
Really Good Reading....
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 15:04:21
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
AustinMN wrote:
> Iordani wrote:
> > Ioannis wrote:
> >
> > > So, for visible wavelengths if we increased the depth sufficiently
> > > shouldn't we 'see' completely dark images, then?
> >
> > Yes, we shouldn't :)
>
> I don't think we should have any trouble seeing invisible images as
> long as we have an unending exposure and an unmeasurably large apature.
> ;)
>
> Austin
Well, that and a focal ratio of f/0.
;-)
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:33:31
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
Iordani wrote:
> Ioannis wrote:
>
> > So, for visible wavelengths if we increased the depth sufficiently
> > shouldn't we 'see' completely dark images, then?
>
> Yes, we shouldn't :)
I don't think we should have any trouble seeing invisible images as
long as we have an unending exposure and an unmeasurably large apature.
;)
Austin
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 11:13:56
From: RMOLLISE
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
Ioannis wrote:
> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as we
> wanted, what would we see?
>
> Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we looked
> deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the light
> from the big bang, perhaps?
>
Hi:
No...not exactly.
Actually, in a sense, it's already been done. The cosmic microwave
background radiation _is_ the Big Bang, the glow of the Big Bang, WAY
redshifted.
Beyond that? Alas, not long after the Big Bang the universe went dark.
There were no sources of light, and the universe was also basically
opaque, being filled with light-absorbing neutral hydrogen. This went
on for about a billion years.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of:
Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope
and
The Urban Astronomer's Guide
<http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland >
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 22:07:40
From: Ioannis
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
"RMOLLISE" <rmollise@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1160763236.737780.16140@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> Hi:
>
> No...not exactly.
>
> Actually, in a sense, it's already been done. The cosmic microwave
> background radiation _is_ the Big Bang, the glow of the Big Bang, WAY
> redshifted.
Thanks guys. Yes, I am aware of the microwave background radiation. My
question concerns visible wavelengths.
> Beyond that? Alas, not long after the Big Bang the universe went dark.
> There were no sources of light, and the universe was also basically
> opaque, being filled with light-absorbing neutral hydrogen. This went
> on for about a billion years.
So, for visible wavelengths if we increased the depth sufficiently shouldn't
we 'see' completely dark images, then?
> Peace,
> Rod Mollise
--
Ioannis
-------
The best way to predict reality, is to know exactly what you DON'T want.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 21:38:31
From: Iordani
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
Ioannis wrote:
> So, for visible wavelengths if we increased the depth sufficiently
> shouldn't we 'see' completely dark images, then?
Yes, we shouldn't :)
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 14:05:15
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
"Ioannis" <morpheus@olympus.mons > wrote in message
news:1160761993.209996@athprx04...
> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as we
> wanted, what would we see?
>
> Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we
looked
> deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the
light
> from the big bang, perhaps?
Due to the expansion of the universe, the further
you look the more red shifted the light becomes.
The furthest you can look back with electromagnetic
radiation (light) is to the point where the density
and temperature of the universe dropped low enough
for light to decouple from matter. That's where
the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)
comes from -- it's the relic of that point in time.
The CMBR appears as microwave radiation at a
temperature of about 3.2K. If you want to see
"photos" of it, take a look at some of the images
produced by WMAP.
http://images.google.ca/images?q=WMAP&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:56:14
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
Ioannis wrote:
> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
It is a really,really dumb way to look out on the celestial arena for
it willfully ignores the orbital cycles which makes Copernican
reasoning possible,the Keplerian refinement and more importantly,at
least in this thread,the Roemerian refinement based on finite lighht
speed and how it affects observations.
Not only did Newton switch the way retrogrades wer plotted against the
stellar background and resolved by an orbitally moving Earth,he bundled
the Keplerian refinement regarding orbital geometry with the Roemerian
insight on finite light distance
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that
is to say, a little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in
the aphelion distances, so as to maintain an equality in the
description of the areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers,
and particularly demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his
satellites; by the help of which eclipses, as we have said, the
heliocentric longitudes of that planet, and its distances from the sun,
are determined."
> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as we
> wanted, what would we see?
>
Is it not enough that you can magnify celestial objects and be
productive that way rather than follow the dumb celestial sphere
geometers .You have the imaging tools to explain heliocentricity for
the first time to an audience that will love it and you still want to
look out on the cosmos with that same tired eyes that has Wormsley
posting about 'a nonsensical 'every point is the valid center of the
universe'.
> Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we looked
> deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the light
> from the big bang, perhaps?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Ioannis
> -------
> The best way to predict reality, is to know exactly what you DON'T want.
This is a thumbsucking exercise ,an anti-astronomical viewpoint with no
productive intents or purpose.I have already taught you that axial
rotation to a celestial sphere morphed into orbital motion to
aether/absolute space but at the core of the 'every valid point is the
center' is still Newton's celestial sphere geometry.
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
The ideas you are fed are extremely unhealthy,nightmares of the
mathematical mind in the absence of an astronomer to set things right.
An astrophotographer can help restore the astronomical heritage which
looks out on the great cycles rather than ignores them.Considering that
you can't even recognise axial rotation as an indepdendent motion you
had better set cosmological evolution alone for a while.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 01:32:06
From: Wally
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
--------------9C40A45CA4974EEA6B5F17FD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So - why cant we see an image of our own region of space forming
and our own galaxy in the past, since it is time remote ?
jp
Ioannis wrote:
> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as we
> wanted, what would we see?
>
> Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we looked
> deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the light
> from the big bang, perhaps?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Ioannis
> -------
> The best way to predict reality, is to know exactly what you DON'T want.
--------------9C40A45CA4974EEA6B5F17FD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!dype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en" >
<html >
So - why cant we see an image of our own region of space forming
<br >and our own galaxy in the past, since it<tt> is time remote ?</tt>
<br >jp
<br >
<p >Ioannis wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE >It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo
is a trip in time. The
<br >farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
<br >My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep
as we
<br >wanted, what would we see?
<p >Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as
we looked
<br >deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the
light
<br >from the big bang, perhaps?
<p >Thanks,
<br >--
<br >Ioannis
<br >-------
<br >The best way to predict reality, is to know exactly what you DON'T
want.</blockquote >
</html >
--------------9C40A45CA4974EEA6B5F17FD--
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:57:14
From: nytecam
Subject: Re: Seeing as far back as the big bang
|
Ioannis Wrote:
> It is a well-known fact that any astronomy photo is a trip in time. The
> farther the object, the farther back in time we see.
> My question is, assuming we had a powerful telescope to view as deep as
> we
> wanted, what would we see?
>
> Something like the brightness of the photos to increase uniformly as we
> looked
> deeper and deeper until the photos became completely saturated by the
> light
> from the big bang, perhaps?
>
> Thanks, -- Ioannis
Quasar APM08279+5255 in Lynx as a mag 15.2 'star' is well within sight
with a large scope and is receding at 92% velocity of light
[=276,000km/sec] and some 10 billion light-years away, brightened by a
factor x20 by intervening galaxy groups [eg gravitationally lenses] to
shine like 5 quadrillion suns - truly a Lighthouse at the Edge of the
Universe. Take a look or if not try my homepage
http://www.astroman.fsnet.co.uk/qimages.htm
Nytecam 51N 0.1W
--
nytecam
|
|
