APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
APOD Robot
Otto Posterman
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 am

APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby APOD Robot » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:06 am

Image Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014

Explanation: Galaxies like colorful pieces of candy fill the Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014. The dimmest galaxies are more than 10 billion times fainter than stars visible to the unaided eye and represent the Universe in the extreme past, a few 100 million years after the Big Bang. The image itself was made with the significant addition of ultraviolet data to the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, an update of Hubble's famous most distant gaze toward the southern constellation of Fornax. It now covers the entire range of wavelengths available to Hubble's cameras, from ultraviolet through visible to near-infrared. Ultraviolet data adds the crucial capability of studying star formation in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field galaxies between 5 and 10 billion light-years distant.

<< Previous APOD This Day in APOD Next APOD >>

User avatar
BMAONE23
Commentator Model 1.23
Posts: 4076
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
Location: California

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby BMAONE23 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:06 am

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away...

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Beyond » Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:09 am

They took a picture of empty space...
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 8256
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Ann » Thu Jun 05, 2014 5:24 am

Nice! I'm glad that the ultraviolet part of the spectrum finally got its share of the cosmic Hubble pie.

Ann
Color Commentator

Krell1956

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Krell1956 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:05 am

I would like to know more detail about the UV data and what it's adding to the Ultra Deep Field image. The APOD post says the UV data helped study star formation in galaxies 5 to 10 billion LY away. I haven't done the math on it, but I would think that even energetic gamma rays associated with star formation (if they ARE associated with star formation- doesn't seem energetic enough) would have red shifted to longer wavelengths than UV. Is there something I'm not reading right? Energetic black holes and star formation....?

Boomer12k
:---[===] *
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:07 am

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Boomer12k » Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:46 am

Deep fields are so interesting. And it shows Galaxies, formed pretty early.

They did another deep field after this one...the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field.

I think there was an APOD of the Earliest known Galaxy...it must have been found like that...but can't remember much about it.

Hubble has done a great job!

:---[===] *

bactame
Ensign
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:25 am

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby bactame » Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:44 am

So this is a nice looking image of a time where-in more dark energy must have been available for future growth. And here we are wondering how much more growth is available. Nice image...it even looks like its an earlier time somehow.

User avatar
Indigo_Sunrise
Science Officer
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: SoMd

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Indigo_Sunrise » Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:03 am

Oooooh! Love the 'candy dish' description! Very awesome image.

*Boomer12k - do you have a link to the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field that you mentioned? When I searched for it, the link I got (here), looks exactly like the Ultra Deep Field Image. (Could just be my untrained eyes, though.) TIA!


:saturn:
Forget the box, just get outside.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 8256
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Ann » Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:49 am

Indigo_Sunrise wrote:Oooooh! Love the 'candy dish' description! Very awesome image.

*Boomer12k - do you have a link to the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field that you mentioned? When I searched for it, the link I got (here), looks exactly like the Ultra Deep Field Image. (Could just be my untrained eyes, though.) TIA!


:saturn:


It is the same field, but the earlier picture was made without any ultraviolet filters. You can find the B, R and several I's (infrared filters) image here.

Ann
Color Commentator

Boomer12k
:---[===] *
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:07 am

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Boomer12k » Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:57 am

Does anyone detect, notice, see....any Gravitational Lensing in this or other deep fields?????

My thought is...this is way back when the Universe was supposedly smaller....so galaxies were closer, so there should be more gravitational effects....and that should be noticeable....

:---[===] *

Boomer12k
:---[===] *
Posts: 1972
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:07 am

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Boomer12k » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:02 pm

Indigo_Sunrise wrote:Oooooh! Love the 'candy dish' description! Very awesome image.

*Boomer12k - do you have a link to the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field that you mentioned? When I searched for it, the link I got (here), looks exactly like the Ultra Deep Field Image. (Could just be my untrained eyes, though.) TIA!


:saturn:



I guess they are the same....that is what I found too....maybe they call it that because of the added data???

:---[===] *

henrystar
Ensign
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:40 am

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby henrystar » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:11 pm

Boomer12k wrote:
Indigo_Sunrise wrote:Oooooh! Love the 'candy dish' description! Very awesome image.

*Boomer12k - do you have a link to the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field that you mentioned? When I searched for it, the link I got (here), looks exactly like the Ultra Deep Field Image. (Could just be my untrained eyes, though.) TIA!


:saturn:



I guess they are the same....that is what I found too....maybe they call it that because of the added data???

:---[===] *


Thanks for the link to the earlier image! Now look closely at the bright star in the lower-right quadrant. You can tell it is simply a star in our own galaxy because of the diffraction pattern. Now look at the diffraction pattern DIFFERENCES in the two images. Each diffraction pattern is a composite of the separate diffraction patterns for the various wavelengths in which the components of the image were taken. The new one has colors not present in the earlier one. That is the big difference!

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: South Texas

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby BDanielMayfield » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:15 pm

Boomer12k wrote:Does anyone detect, notice, see....any Gravitational Lensing in this or other deep fields?????

My thought is...this is way back when the Universe was supposedly smaller....so galaxies were closer, so there should be more gravitational effects....and that should be noticeable....

:---[===] *

No, I don't see anything that clearly looks like a gravitational lensing effect in this image. But alinements have to be just right for lensing to occur.

Why say "supposedly smaller"? And this image proves that galaxies where packed closer together back then.

Bruce
"Happy are the peaceable ... "

NGC3314
Telescope Nerd
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:15 pm

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby NGC3314 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:49 pm

Krell1956 wrote:I would like to know more detail about the UV data and what it's adding to the Ultra Deep Field image. The APOD post says the UV data helped study star formation in galaxies 5 to 10 billion LY away. I haven't done the math on it, but I would think that even energetic gamma rays associated with star formation (if they ARE associated with star formation- doesn't seem energetic enough) would have red shifted to longer wavelengths than UV. Is there something I'm not reading right? Energetic black holes and star formation....?


The hallmark of star-forming regions (as long as they're not too dust-enshrouded) is intense radiation in the emitted UV part of the spectrum, so strongly that images are more and more sensitive to the level of star formation at shorter UV wavelengths until one reaches the Lyman limit where radiation has enough energy to ionize hydrogen (912 Angstroms, 91.2 nm, 13.6 eV photon energy). So UV data improve our census of cosmic star formation up to redshifts where the filter samples the "missing" radiation absorbed by gas in each galaxy. The new data use several near-UV filters down to 2250 A wavelength, so they show star formation to a redshift (2250-912)/912=1.46 (with a soft cutoff because of the width of the filter transmission). That would be a lookback time of about 9 Gyr.

To show how sensitive the UV is to recent star formation, this plot compares the spectra of bursts of star formation at billion-year intervals (top to bottom). The intensity scale is logarithmic, stressing how fast the population of stars both fades and reddens with time. (Taken from this class page)

Image

One reason these data were taken now is that the sensitivity of the UV instruments on Hubble is declining noticeably year to year (which pretty much all UV detectors do in space, due to damage from particle impacts and accumulating contaminants if anything else in the system outgases), so for the last couple of years Hubble has been scheduled under a "UV Initiative", giving extra weight to UV observations while they're still easy.

User avatar
ritwik
Science Officer
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:53 pm

i dont BELIEVE

Postby ritwik » Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:54 pm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111343.htm

spiral arms take atleast 100mill yrs to form

i see many spirals w/ fullyevolved discs
this the is the view right aftr 100my frm BB hmmmmm :?:

NGC3314
Telescope Nerd
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:15 pm

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby NGC3314 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:11 pm

No, it's not, The most distant objects known are at redshifts about z=7, which would be about 500 million years cosmic age. The highest-redshift galaxies known at this point which are clear spirals have redshifts about z=2.5 (and there are very few of those), which would be a cosmic age of 2.5 billion years.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13000
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Chris Peterson » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:38 pm

NGC3314 wrote:No, it's not, The most distant objects known are at redshifts about z=7, which would be about 500 million years cosmic age. The highest-redshift galaxies known at this point which are clear spirals have redshifts about z=2.5 (and there are very few of those), which would be a cosmic age of 2.5 billion years.

The highest redshift galaxies in the HUDF are about z=12, meaning they correspond to an age of about 375 million years.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Tszabeau

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Tszabeau » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:45 pm

I was pondering the scale of this image using the spiked stars as reference markers which, helps me gain some perspective. I have always assumed that the artifact spikes appear around relatively nearby stars within the Milky Way however, I notice a few of the galaxy's also appear to have spikes. Are those galaxies being superimposed by nearby spiked-stars making them just to appear that way or is the exposure, simply, deep enough to cause nearer galaxies to appear spiked as shallower exposures make nearer stars to?
Yes, I know the spikes are photographic artifacts.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13000
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Chris Peterson » Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Tszabeau wrote:I was pondering the scale of this image using the spiked stars as reference markers which, helps me gain some perspective. I have always assumed that the artifact spikes appear around relatively nearby stars within the Milky Way however, I notice a few of the galaxy's also appear to have spikes. Are those galaxies being superimposed by nearby spiked-stars making them just to appear that way or is the exposure, simply, deep enough to cause nearer galaxies to appear spiked as shallower exposures make nearer stars to?
Yes, I know the spikes are photographic artifacts.

Spikes are not photographic artifacts, they are optical artifacts caused by diffraction off the secondary mirror supports. Every object in the image has spikes, but for dim extended objects they are below the noise floor. Some galaxies have bright enough cores that they produce visible spikes in this deep image. They are real- not the product of nearby stars superimposed on the galaxies.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 14014
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby neufer » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:09 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
NGC3314 wrote:
No, it's not, The most distant objects known are at redshifts about z=7, which would be about 500 million years cosmic age. The highest-redshift galaxies known at this point which are clear spirals have redshifts about z=2.5 (and there are very few of those), which would be a cosmic age of 2.5 billion years.

The highest redshift galaxies in the HUDF are about z=12, meaning they correspond to an age of about 375 million years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q2343-BX442 wrote:
Click to play embedded YouTube video.

<<BX442 (Q2343-BX442) is the most distant known grand design spiral galaxy in the universe, with a redshift of z=2.1765 ± 0.0001. Although commonly referred to as the oldest known grand design spiral galaxy in the universe, it is more accurately the earliest such galaxy known to exist in the universe, with a lookback time (the difference between the age of the universe now and the age of the universe at the time light left the galaxy) of 10.7 billion years in the concordance cosmology. This time estimate means that structure seen in BX442 developed roughly 3 billion years after the Big Bang. The spiral morphology of BX442, while similar to many modern-day galaxies, makes it unusual in the young universe. According to study co-author Alice E. Shapley of UCLA: The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks. Our first thought was, why is this one so different, and so beautiful?>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539 wrote:

<<UDFy-38135539 (also known as "HUDF.YD3") is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF) identifier for a galaxy which was calculated as of October 2010 to have a light travel time of 13.1 billion years, only 600 million years after the estimated age of the Big Bang, when the universe was only 4% of its current age. The galaxy is estimated to have contained roughly a billion stars, although it was only at most one tenth of the diameter of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and had less than 1% of the mass of the Milky Way's stars. According to Lehnert (of the Observatoire de Paris), it was forming the same number of stars per year as our galaxy, but they were much smaller and less massive, making it "intensely star forming". The team's analysis determined that light from the galaxy has a redshift of z = 8.5549  accurate to within a degree of difference of  0.0002. For comparison, light from the previous record-holder for most distant object, the gamma-ray burst GRB 090423, has a redshift of 8.2.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFj-39546284 wrote:

<<UDFj-39546284 is the designation given to a stellar structure reported January 27, 2011, as light from the oldest object detected through infrared observation within the Hubble Space Telescope. It was reported in December 2012 to be at redshift z = 11.9 using Hubble and Spitzer telescope data, including Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF).

The image is likely to correspond to a compact mini-galaxy of blue stars that existed as we see it 13.42 billion years ago, around "380 million years" after the Big Bang (estimated at 13.8 billion years ago).

A stellar organization first formed during a time thought temporally near to the end period of the Dark Ages, the galaxy is remarkable mainly because it holds significantly expanded information of the early period after the Big Bang.>>
Art Neuendorffer

NGC3314
Telescope Nerd
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 5:15 pm

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby NGC3314 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:16 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
NGC3314 wrote:No, it's not, The most distant objects known are at redshifts about z=7, which would be about 500 million years cosmic age. The highest-redshift galaxies known at this point which are clear spirals have redshifts about z=2.5 (and there are very few of those), which would be a cosmic age of 2.5 billion years.

The highest redshift galaxies in the HUDF are about z=12, meaning they correspond to an age of about 375 million years.


OK, that's a fair cop. How about "The highest-redshift galaxies or GRB counterparts with spectroscopically confirmed redshifts from individual spectral features" (not that I have major misgivings about photometric redshifts at this point, just that spectra leave less room for error). As best I can recall, everything with z>8 so far has only a photometric redshift estimate.

Tszabeau

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Tszabeau » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:23 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Tszabeau wrote:I was pondering the scale of this image using the spiked stars as reference markers which, helps me gain some perspective. I have always assumed that the artifact spikes appear around relatively nearby stars within the Milky Way however, I notice a few of the galaxy's also appear to have spikes. Are those galaxies being superimposed by nearby spiked-stars making them just to appear that way or is the exposure, simply, deep enough to cause nearer galaxies to appear spiked as shallower exposures make nearer stars to?
Yes, I know the spikes are photographic artifacts.

Spikes are not photographic artifacts, they are optical artifacts caused by diffraction off the secondary mirror supports. Every object in the image has spikes, but for dim extended objects they are below the noise floor. Some galaxies have bright enough cores that they produce visible spikes in this deep image. They are real- not the product of nearby stars superimposed on the galaxies.


Since the spikes are not photographic artifacts but diffractions of mirror supports, does it follow that each telescope has its' own signature spike? Can the spikes be compensated or countered out of an image with software or optical means, based on the known structure of the mirror supports, like atmospheric shimmering is compensated for in earth-bound scopes?

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13000
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby Chris Peterson » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:32 pm

Tszabeau wrote:Since the spikes are not photographic artifacts but diffractions of mirror supports, does it follow that each telescope has its' own signature spike? Can the spikes be compensated or countered out of an image with software or optical means, based on the known structure of the mirror supports, like atmospheric shimmering is compensated for in earth-bound scopes?

Every telescope produces a diffraction pattern that is determined by its aperture characteristics- diameter, shape, and the size and shape of any occluding elements. A four-vane spider produces four spikes; a three-vane spider produces six spikes (each vane produces a pair; in the case of four vanes, spikes overlap); an eight-element iris produces eight spikes; an unobstructed circular aperture produces rings.

In principle, you could use deconvolution to reduce the spikes. However, that sort of reverse filtering typically has no closed solution (filters destroy information), and anything you do to reduce the spikes is likely to lead to new artifacts. Best to leave them. Indeed, some people add them digitally, or put crosshairs across their otherwise unobstructed telescope aperture in order to create them optically. Go figure!
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

tomatoherd

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby tomatoherd » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:42 pm

Art pastes a quote saying that oldest spiral is "at most one tenth the diameter of our galaxy".
How pertinent are sizes when looking that far back? IOW, since the universe has expanded, indeed space itself has expanded, how much bigger is the universe now compared to 300+ million years, and 3 billions years cosmic age? Isn't comparing sizes without accounting for expansion a lot like our parents comparing prices from the '50s and '60s without taking inflation into account???

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 14014
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 (2014 Jun 05)

Postby neufer » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:48 pm

tomatoherd wrote:
Art pastes a quote saying that oldest spiral is "at most one tenth the diameter of our galaxy".
How pertinent are sizes when looking that far back? IOW, since the universe has expanded, indeed space itself has expanded, how much bigger is the universe now compared to 300+ million years, and 3 billions years cosmic age? Isn't comparing sizes without accounting for expansion a lot like our parents comparing prices from the '50s and '60s without taking inflation into account???

Galaxies grow bigger with time from absorbing/assimilating more gas and other galaxies.

Galaxies DO NOT grow bigger with time due to the expansion of the universe.
Art Neuendorffer


Return to “The Bridge: Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ann, Bing [Bot] and 4 guests