Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Digital Trends)   Oldest galaxy found confirmed with oxygen. Formed roughly 367m years after the big bang, shattering the Hubbles oldest galaxy record by almost 600m years   (digitaltrends.com) divider line
42
    More: Interesting, Astronomy, Big Bang, Galaxy, Redshift, Astronomer, Radio telescope, Telescope, Metric expansion of space  
•       •       •

605 clicks; posted to STEM » on 29 Jan 2023 at 6:35 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



42 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
Monty_Zoncolan [TotalFark]
2023-01-29 12:44:45 AM  
Call me when we get Jesus mailing address, or at least a PO
 
Wanebo [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-29 12:51:19 AM  
*does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.
 
Stephen_Falken [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-29 12:59:02 AM  
I can see this happening even sooner. If the inflationary big bang theory is correct - and we have no serious reason to doubt it yet - then particulate matter would have begun coalescing as the three dimensions were established. Since we know that large stars burn hot as hell and burn out quickly (only a few million years in some cases), I can accept heavy elements being created in supernova explosions even much earlier than this discovery. I figure the most impressive thing about this is that we were able to observe it.
 
Circusdog320 [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-29 1:22:54 AM  
Everything we thought we new about the origin of the universe is probably wrong...ain't science WONDERFUL!  Hopefully we don't blow ourselves to shiat  before we figure it out.
 
brantgoose [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-29 2:15:35 AM  
That might push back the origins of life a ways, but it's hard to say without a list of which elements existed then. Some of the heavier elements were made by giant early stars, while it would take only one element in between those made by small older stars like brown dwarves and red dwarves and those made by collaping giant blue stars to put the kabosh on life in most solar systems for a couple of bilion years.

If the average time for first life is about average for our Sun, it would be a little more than five or six billion years ago for many early solar systems born in places like the star nusary where our Sun was born. Not much change from what we know. But upper and lower limits could tighten up because of this find.
 
brantgoose [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-29 2:17:39 AM  
Science never comes easy, does it? Not withou allowing miraces and omnipresent, omni-potent gods or aliens or robots.
 
Marcus Aurelius [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-29 5:50:41 AM  
That's not supposed to be there.
 
Marcus Aurelius [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2023-01-29 5:51:22 AM  

Circusdog320: Everything we thought we new about the origin of the universe is probably wrong...ain't science WONDERFUL!  Hopefully we don't blow ourselves to shiat  before we figure it out.


I never liked inflation anyway.  Too magic wandy.
 
LewDux [OhFark]
2023-01-29 6:50:22 AM  

Circusdog320: Everything we thought we new about the origin of the universe is probably wrong


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
leeksfromchichis [TotalFark]
2023-01-29 7:18:26 AM  
science repotting is crap.

my azaleas have never recovered
 
Cormee
2023-01-29 7:23:42 AM  
That doesn't add up
 
LewDux [OhFark]
2023-01-29 7:42:30 AM  

Cormee: That doesn't add up


967 - 600 = 367
 
buravirgil
2023-01-29 7:43:12 AM  

Wanebo: *does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.


There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.

~ 1923, Punch (London humor magazine)
 
ZMugg [TotalFark]
2023-01-29 7:58:21 AM  
We (and the Universe) would do well to remember the *O2 Law of Balance*:

Too High
...
*Sweet Spot*
...
Gonna Die

this Law of Nature brought to you by some '70's British band or other...
 
I dont want to be on this planet anymore
2023-01-29 8:10:59 AM  

Wanebo: *does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.


media-amazon.comView Full Size
 
Aquapope
2023-01-29 8:48:09 AM  

Circusdog320: Everything we thought we new about the origin of the universe is probably wrong...ain't science WONDERFUL!  Hopefully we don't blow ourselves to shiat  before we figure it out.


Everything we'll ever think we know about anything is wrong, but it's less wrong than it was before and it will be less wrong later, and even less wrong later still.  Science is wonderful!
 
Unsung_Hero
2023-01-29 10:02:45 AM  

brantgoose: That might push back the origins of life a ways, but it's hard to say without a list of which elements existed then. Some of the heavier elements were made by giant early stars, while it would take only one element in between those made by small older stars like brown dwarves and red dwarves and those made by collaping giant blue stars to put the kabosh on life in most solar systems for a couple of bilion years.

If the average time for first life is about average for our Sun, it would be a little more than five or six billion years ago for many early solar systems born in places like the star nusary where our Sun was born. Not much change from what we know. But upper and lower limits could tighten up because of this find.


It's not so much when the first heavier elements appeared, it's about when they appeared in sufficient concentrations to produce long-lived stars with rocky planets.  Back in 2012 there was a lot of discussion claiming you would only find rocky worlds around a star with a metallicity of at least 0.001, but I'm pretty sure that was revised significantly upwards in the last year.  My google-fu is weak today and I can't find a citation for it, though.

Anyway, that would seem to suggest you need to get to Pop I stars before you'll see potential for Earth-like worlds, and I believe that means you are limited to a few billion years prior to the Sun forming.  Which is still an impressive period of time for little green men to have had a chance to evolve and colonize the galaxy if they were inclined to do so, but it does leave 7 or 8 billion years of sterile universe preceding them.
 
berylman [TotalFark]
2023-01-29 10:04:03 AM  
Just wait until we finally realize that the "big bang" was not a singular event but a perpetually reoccurring process in a cycle and that it is Mitch McConnells all the way down
 
Unsung_Hero
2023-01-29 10:06:36 AM  

berylman: Just wait until we finally realize that the "big bang" was not a singular event but a perpetually reoccurring process in a cycle


I tend to believe this, but based on current knowledge it doesn't seem like it could be a Big Bang / Big Crunch cycle.  If the universe is infinite on the time axis, something more interesting is going on.
 
LrdPhoenix
2023-01-29 10:16:29 AM  

Wanebo: *does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.


Why are you subtracting?

If it beat the record by 600 million years, then the oldest galaxy found by Hubble would be from 367,000,000 + 600,000,000 or 967 million years after the Big Bang.

Of course, it didn't beat the record by 600 million years. The oldest galaxy found by Hubble is GN-z11, which is from somewhere around 400 million years after the Big Bang.  So it beat the record by somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million years.
 
qorkfiend
2023-01-29 10:48:20 AM  

Aquapope: Circusdog320: Everything we thought we new about the origin of the universe is probably wrong...ain't science WONDERFUL!  Hopefully we don't blow ourselves to shiat  before we figure it out.

Everything we'll ever think we know about anything is wrong, but it's less wrong than it was before and it will be less wrong later, and even less wrong later still.  Science is wonderful!


The best that most of us can hope to achieve in physics is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level.
Wolfgang Pauli
 
ZMugg [TotalFark]
2023-01-29 10:52:13 AM  

LrdPhoenix: Wanebo: *does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.

Why are you subtracting?

If it beat the record by 600 million years, then the oldest galaxy found by Hubble would be from 367,000,000 + 600,000,000 or 967 million years after the Big Bang.

Of course, it didn't beat the record by 600 million years. The oldest galaxy found by Hubble is GN-z11, which is from somewhere around 400 million years after the Big Bang.  So it beat the record by somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million years.


Basically, a rounding error. Practically simultaneously.
 
LewDux [OhFark]
2023-01-29 11:02:45 AM  

berylman: Just wait until we finally realize that the "big bang" was not a singular event but a perpetually reoccurring process in a cycle and that it is Mitch McConnells all the way down


*waits*
 
qorkfiend
2023-01-29 11:24:44 AM  

ZMugg: LrdPhoenix: Wanebo: *does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.

Why are you subtracting?

If it beat the record by 600 million years, then the oldest galaxy found by Hubble would be from 367,000,000 + 600,000,000 or 967 million years after the Big Bang.

Of course, it didn't beat the record by 600 million years. The oldest galaxy found by Hubble is GN-z11, which is from somewhere around 400 million years after the Big Bang.  So it beat the record by somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million years.

Basically, a rounding error. Practically simultaneously.


Well, no, because cosmologists aren't satisfied with errors on the order of 10%

Specifically, the old record was a redshift of 10.96, and the new record is 13.2, well outside any reasonable "rounding error"
 
Periscopes Down
2023-01-29 11:26:09 AM  
That's pretty incredible.
 
johnphantom
2023-01-29 12:00:22 PM  

Periscopes Down: That's pretty incredible.


You have no vision.
 
estrange666
2023-01-29 12:04:02 PM  

Unsung_Hero: berylman: Just wait until we finally realize that the "big bang" was not a singular event but a perpetually reoccurring process in a cycle

I tend to believe this, but based on current knowledge it doesn't seem like it could be a Big Bang / Big Crunch cycle.  If the universe is infinite on the time axis, something more interesting is going on.


I was holding out hope for the Big Rip, but wikipedia says it won't happen.  So heat death it is.
 
LrdPhoenix
2023-01-29 12:23:00 PM  

qorkfiend: ZMugg: LrdPhoenix: Wanebo: *does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.

Why are you subtracting?

If it beat the record by 600 million years, then the oldest galaxy found by Hubble would be from 367,000,000 + 600,000,000 or 967 million years after the Big Bang.

Of course, it didn't beat the record by 600 million years. The oldest galaxy found by Hubble is GN-z11, which is from somewhere around 400 million years after the Big Bang.  So it beat the record by somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million years.

Basically, a rounding error. Practically simultaneously.

Well, no, because cosmologists aren't satisfied with errors on the order of 10%

Specifically, the old record was a redshift of 10.96, and the new record is 13.2, well outside any reasonable "rounding error"


Pretty much, though really depends on what the error bars are, but once you've spectrographically verified it the potential error is pretty small.

By the way, the naming convention for these is Survey-zRedshift(rounded).  So the oldest galaxy found by Hubble is GN-z11 or GOODS-North-z11 for Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey North Field with a redshift of 10.957 +- 0.001.  The galaxy the article is talking about is GLASS-z12, which is the Grism Lens Amplified Survey from Space with a redshift of 12.117 +- 0.01.  And the one you're talking about with 13.2 is probably JADES-GS-z13 which is JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey-GOODS South Field with a redshift of 13.2 +0.04 -0.07.
 
gameshowhost [OhFark]
2023-01-29 12:28:35 PM  

Wanebo: *does math 367,000,000-600,000,000= -233,000,000*

We are into the future he folks. We've gone past the past and come right back around.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
marklar [TotalFark]
2023-01-29 1:02:20 PM  

LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367


Yeah, that's subtraction, not addition
 
LewDux [OhFark]
2023-01-29 1:04:45 PM  

marklar: LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367

Yeah, that's subtraction, not addition


-967 + 600 = -367
 
leeksfromchichis [TotalFark]
2023-01-29 2:41:12 PM  
qorkfiend:

Science can only falsify.  That's all we truly learn is what's not going on.  It is like a negative from which we can project an idea of physical reality
 
Cormee
2023-01-29 4:05:10 PM  

LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367


I'm really confused now
 
LewDux [OhFark]
2023-01-29 4:43:11 PM  

Cormee: LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367

I'm really confused now


Fark user image
 
New Farkin User Name
2023-01-29 5:09:53 PM  

LewDux: Cormee: LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367

I'm really confused now

[Fark user image 704x40]


why is -967 after 0 and 367?
 
LewDux [OhFark]
2023-01-29 5:25:30 PM  

New Farkin User Name: LewDux: Cormee: LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367

I'm really confused now

[Fark user image 704x40]

why is -967 after 0 and 367?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
New Farkin User Name
2023-01-29 5:50:47 PM  

LewDux: New Farkin User Name: LewDux: Cormee: LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367

I'm really confused now

[Fark user image 704x40]

why is -967 after 0 and 367?

[Fark user image 850x146]


prox prox prox prox?
 
Unsung_Hero
2023-01-29 5:54:41 PM  

New Farkin User Name: LewDux: Cormee: LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367

I'm really confused now

[Fark user image 704x40]

why is -967 after 0 and 367?


It's not a minus sign, it's a tilde, which is used to mean 'approximately'.

Your image shows "0, 367, approximately 967, now".
 
New Farkin User Name
2023-01-29 6:43:12 PM  

Unsung_Hero: New Farkin User Name: LewDux: Cormee: LewDux: Cormee: That doesn't add up

967 - 600 = 367

I'm really confused now

[Fark user image 704x40]

why is -967 after 0 and 367?

It's not a minus sign, it's a tilde, which is used to mean 'approximately'.

Your image shows "0, 367, approximately 967, now".


"now" isn't a number!
 
rogue49
2023-01-29 8:25:55 PM  
It's likely not "The Big Bang"
It's more likely a big bang.
Just the cusp of a wave, perhaps one of multiple or many.

Why does everything need to be in absolutes???
Nature is often not black and white.
It's complex, dynamic and in spectrum and layers.
Chaos Theory in action.
 
Cormee
2023-01-30 3:25:21 AM  

rogue49: It's likely not "The Big Bang"
It's more likely a big bang.
Just the cusp of a wave, perhaps one of multiple or many.

Why does everything need to be in absolutes???
Nature is often not black and white.
It's complex, dynamic and in spectrum and layers.
Chaos Theory in action.


What if The Big Bang was just a Medium Bang, and they're lying to us 🤔
 
LewDux [OhFark]
2023-01-30 5:12:52 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Circusdog320: Everything we thought we new about the origin of the universe is probably wrong...ain't science WONDERFUL!  Hopefully we don't blow ourselves to shiat  before we figure it out.

I never liked inflation anyway.  Too magic wandy.


What Caused the Big Bang?
Youtube xJCX2NlhdTc
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

$10 a month since 19 aught diddly.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.