How far into the past can we look? (when looking at stars)

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Can we look at the beginning of the universe?
Because, time-space was UNFOLDING in the beginning (and perhaps still),
so how can this be?

Or am I remembering the basic concept of 'looking into the past' wrong?

The further we see, the more into the past, no?
Therefor, if we were somehow able to see to a very distant point, this would mean a point near the beginning of existence hence when time-space was just tiny and unfolding.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,763 • Replies: 35

No top replies

Yes.But before that it was very tiny and had only just begun to unfold.And before that it was very,very tiny and had only just begun to unfold and before that it was very,very,very tiny and had only just.....hey.Knock it off mate.

0 Replies

Spendius, Stop it, you're making me dizzy!

0 Replies

On a clear day, you can see forever.

0 Replies

To the extent of current observational capabilities, the universe appears to be approximately 14 Billon years old. This estimate derives from the study of the doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation from the most distantly known objects, and is corroborated by the study of the phenomenon known as Cosmic Background Radiation.

Interestingly, the term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle, as a term of dismissive derision; he was the leading proponent of the now-discarded "steady state" hypothesis.

Of interest to those of less than science-geek persuasion, the following is an excellently written, very accessible, engaging book outlining the current state of knowledge regarding the birth of the universe:

The First Three Minutes - A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe: Weinberg, S.
(1989 - 2nd ed: 1993) Basic Books, NY NY
ISBN: 0465024378

0 Replies

That's very true.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Of interest to those of less than science-geek persuasion, the following is an excellently written, very accessible, engaging book outlining the current state of knowledge regarding the birth of the universe:

The First Three Minutes - A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe: Weinberg, S.
(1989 - 2nd ed: 1993) Basic Books, NY NY
ISBN: 0465024378

Thanks for the reference, it sounds very interesting.

0 Replies

Fred was talking about the event which brought the universe into his consciousness.

0 Replies

Actually, as far as "Seeing into the past", we pretty much hit a brick wall with the Planck Epoch.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Actually, as far as "Seeing into the past", we pretty much hit a brick wall with the Planck Epoch.

I thought you were suppose to be keeping it simple!

0 Replies

According to Hawking, the light cone will be bent inwards towards a singularity, which is the farthest one could possibly look into past. This would be the beginning of the universe / big bang.

Quote:

To the extent of current observational capabilities, the universe appears to be approximately 14 Billon years old. This estimate derives from the study of the doppler shift of electromagnetic radiation from the most distantly known objects, and is corroborated by the study of the phenomenon known as Cosmic Background Radiation.

Yeah, sure, but we have no evidence supporting the claim that there is only one "universe" in space. I personally find the concept of a single Big Bang ridiculous when in an infinite volume, and I believe that there may be many universes created by their own Big Bang's that are simply far out of reach of our own universe.

It's not like the 1 universe model makes perfect sense anyway, under that theory all the matter should be decellerating not accelerating

0 Replies

BBB
What about the likelyhood that light from celesteral bodies traveling millions and billions of years to earth that we finally see probably no longer exist. Does that mean we are studying things that are no longer there?

BBB

0 Replies

BBB, I think that is very plausible!

0 Replies

Re: BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

What about the likelyhood that light from celesteral bodies traveling millions and billions of years to earth that we finally see probably no longer exist. Does that mean we are studying things that are no longer there?

BBB

Yes. In many cases the stars we see are no longer there.

Supernova 1987a is about 170 thousand light years away, so even though we saw the Supernova in 1987 its progenitor star Sanduleak -69o 202, a blue supergiant, ceased to exist long before our ancestors painted the walls of Lascaux.

0 Replies

Re: BBB

rosborne979 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
What about the likelyhood that light from celesteral bodies traveling millions and billions of years to earth that we finally see probably no longer exist. Does that mean we are studying things that are no longer there?

BBB

Yes. In many cases the stars we see are no longer there.

Supernova 1987a is about 170 thousand light years away, so even though we saw the Supernova in 1987 its progenitor star Sanduleak -69o 202, a blue supergiant, ceased to exist long before our ancestors painted the walls of Lascaux.

This is one of my favorite sites of the Caves of Lascaux ---a virtual tour.

http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/

BBB

0 Replies

Well the universe wasn't transparent until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. So when you say looking do you infer measuring visible e-m radiation or radio / gamma radiation?

COBE can measure the remants of the BB itself.

0 Replies

g-day

g__day wrote:

Well the universe wasn't transparent until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. So when you say looking do you infer measuring visible e-m radiation or radio / gamma radiation?

COBE can measure the remants of the BB itself.

g-day, are you, by any chance, an astronomer? I once knew an astronomer whose telescope facility was out in the boonies. We had wonderful conversations and I learned so much from her.

BBB

0 Replies

Only kinda-sorta re COBE and the remnants of The BB - there's that Planck Horizon we just can't see past.

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

Well the universe wasn't transparent until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. So when you say looking do you infer measuring visible e-m radiation or radio / gamma radiation?

COBE can measure the remants of the BB itself.

WMAP has an even higher resolution that COBE. Here is an image from WMAP:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0509/sky_wmap.jpg

0 Replies

Yes I love astronomy - as an amateur. My interests are high energy physics, theoretical physics, cosmology and astronomy. So the worlds of the very big and very small.

I just like star gazing, my screen saver used to be gravit or another one that modeled galaxies colliding - really cool.

I'm on my second scope at the moment - a 5" MAK with motor drives but no GOTO and am saving for my third which should be either a 10" - 12" Meade or 11" Celestron with CCD imaging equipment and autoguide and focal length reducers.

Its an easy hobby to while away the midnight hours!

0 Replies

How far into the past can we look? (when looking at stars)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know