Earliest watery black hole discovered

Jul 22, 2011
Earliest watery black hole discovered
Image of a distant quasar courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

Water really is everywhere. Two teams of astronomers, each led by scientists at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), have discovered the largest and farthest reservoir of water ever detected in the universe. Looking from a distance of 30 billion trillion miles away into a quasar—one of the brightest and most violent objects in the cosmos—the researchers have found a mass of water vapor that's at least 140 trillion times that of all the water in the world's oceans combined, and 100,000 times more massive than the sun.

Because the quasar is so far away, its light has taken 12 billion years to reach Earth. The observations therefore reveal a time when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old. "The environment around this quasar is unique in that it's producing this huge mass of water," says Matt Bradford, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and a visiting associate at Caltech. "It's another demonstration that water is pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times." Bradford leads one of two international teams of astronomers that have described their quasar findings in separate papers that have been accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

A quasar is powered by an enormous black hole that is steadily consuming a surrounding disk of gas and dust; as it eats, the quasar spews out huge amounts of energy. Both groups of astronomers studied a particular quasar called APM 08279+5255, which harbors a black hole 20 billion times more massive than the sun and produces as much energy as a thousand trillion suns.

Since astronomers expected water vapor to be present even in the early universe, the discovery of water is not itself a surprise, Bradford says. There's water vapor in the Milky Way, although the total amount is 4,000 times less massive than in the quasar, as most of the Milky Way's water is frozen in the form of ice.

Nevertheless, water vapor is an important trace gas that reveals the nature of the quasar.

In this particular quasar, the water vapor is distributed around the black hole in a gaseous region spanning hundreds of light-years (a light-year is about six trillion miles), and its presence indicates that the gas is unusually warm and dense by astronomical standards. Although the gas is a chilly 󈞡 degrees Celsius (󈞫 degrees Fahrenheit) and is 300 trillion times less dense than Earth's atmosphere, it's still five times hotter and 10 to 100 times denser than what's typical in galaxies like the Milky Way.

This artist's concept illustrates a quasar, or feeding black hole, similar to APM 08279+5255, where astronomers discovered huge amounts of water vapor. Gas and dust likely form a torus around the black hole, with clouds of charged gas above and below. X-rays emerge from the center, while dust throughout the torus emits infrared radiation. While this figure shows the quasar's torus approximately edge-on, the torus around APM 08279+5255 is likely positioned face-on from our point of view. Credit: NASA/ESA

The water vapor is just one of many kinds of gas that surround the quasar, and its presence indicates that the quasar is bathing the gas in both X-rays and infrared radiation. The interaction between the radiation and water vapor reveals properties of the gas and how the quasar influences it. For example, analyzing the water vapor shows how the radiation heats the rest of the gas. Furthermore, measurements of the water vapor and of other molecules, such as carbon monoxide, suggest that there is enough gas to feed the black hole until it grows to about six times its size. Whether this will happen is not clear, the astronomers say, since some of the gas may end up condensing into stars or may be ejected from the quasar.

Bradford's team made their observations starting in 2008, using an instrument called Z-Spec at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO), a 10-meter telescope near the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii. Z-Spec is an extremely sensitive spectrograph, requiring temperatures cooled to within 0.06 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. The instrument measures light in a region of the electromagnetic spectrum called the millimeter band, which lies between infrared and microwave wavelengths. The researchers' discovery of water was possible only because Z-Spec's spectral coverage is 10 times larger than that of previous spectrometers operating at these wavelengths. The astronomers made follow-up observations with the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-Wave Astronomy (CARMA), an array of radio dishes in the Inyo Mountains of Southern California.

This discovery highlights the benefits of observing in the millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths, the astronomers say. The field has developed rapidly over the last two to three decades, and to reach the full potential of this line of research, the astronomers—including the study authors—are now designing CCAT, a 25-meter telescope to be built in the Atacama Desert in Chile. CCAT will allow astronomers to discover some of the earliest galaxies in the universe. By measuring the presence of water and other important trace gases, astronomers can study the composition of these primordial galaxies.

The second group, led by Dariusz Lis, senior research associate in physics at Caltech and deputy director of the CSO, used the Plateau de Bure Interferometer in the French Alps to find water. In 2010, Lis's team was looking for traces of hydrogen fluoride in the spectrum of APM 08279+5255, but serendipitously detected a signal in the quasar's spectrum that indicated the presence of water. The signal was at a frequency corresponding to radiation that is emitted when water transitions from a higher energy state to a lower one. While Lis's team found just one signal at a single frequency, the wide bandwidth of Z-Spec enabled Bradford and his colleagues to discover water emission at many frequencies. These multiple water transitions allowed Bradford's team to determine the physical characteristics of the quasar's gas and the water's mass.

Explore further: A star's early chemistry shapes life-friendly atmospheres

More information: "Discovery of water vapor in the high-redshift quasar APM 08279+5255 at Z=3.91," Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Provided by California Institute of Technology

4.9 /5 (18 votes)

Related Stories

Chandra finds evidence for quasar ignition

Mar 23, 2006

New data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory may provide clues to how quasars "turn on." Since the discovery of quasars over 40 years ago, astronomers have been trying to understand the conditions surrounding ...

Galaxy encounter fires up quasar

Jun 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using two of the world’s largest telescopes, an international team of astronomers have found evidence of a collision between galaxies driving intense activity in a highly luminous quasar. ...

Quasar Dust in the Early Universe

Mar 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Quasars are galaxies whose very bright cores are thought to contain massive black holes around which disks are actively accreting matter.

Cosmic Curiosity Reveals Ghostly Glow of Dead Quasar

Nov 03, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- While sorting through hundreds of galaxy images as part of the Galaxy Zoo citizen science project two years ago, Dutch schoolteacher and volunteer astronomer Hanny van Arkel stumbled upon ...

Recommended for you

A star's early chemistry shapes life-friendly atmospheres

6 hours ago

Born in a disc of gas and rubble, planets eventually come together as larger and larger pieces of dust and rock stick together. They may be hundreds of light-years away from us, but astronomers can nevertheless ...

Image: X-raying the cosmos

Apr 22, 2014

When we gaze up at the night sky, we are only seeing part of the story. Unfortunately, some of the most powerful and energetic events in the Universe are invisible to our eyes – and to even the best optical ...

Mysteries of nearby planetary system's dynamics solved

Apr 22, 2014

Mysteries of one of the most fascinating nearby planetary systems now have been solved, report authors of a scientific paper to be published by the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society in its ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Waterdog
5 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2011
6 billion solar mass black hole only 1.6 billion years after the formation of the universe. Incredible.

I don't see how something that large could have formed by accretation in that lenght of time. Isn't it more probable that as the quark/gluon soup of the expansion phase of the universe began to cool and condense, these behemoths formed directly from high density regions of the early universe and then galaxies formed around them as their gravity attracted the condensing gas.

Just a thought. Is there any evidence for or against this hypothesis?
Tuxford
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
The Big Bang theory is simply a 'math model gone wild'. If LaViolette is correct, our universe is more likely very old and an open rather than closed - system. Matter and energy enter our detectable sphere everywhere, but mostly concentrated from the depths of huge galactic core stars. Periodic ejections therefrom then seed the galaxy formation from within. Thus, we see far too few collisions in the early universe to account for their formation. Streams from giant ellipticals are likely largely an artifact of these ejections. Finite distance for gravitational influence allows these ejections to then escape the immediate region of the galaxy.
210
1 / 5 (9) Jul 22, 2011
6 billion solar mass black hole only 1.6 billion years after the formation of the universe. Incredible.
I don't see how something that large could have formed by accretation in that lenght of time. Isn't it more probable that as the quark/gluon soup of the expansion phase of the universe began to cool and condense, these behemoths formed directly from high density regions of the early universe and then galaxies formed around them as their gravity attracted the condensing gas.
Just a thought. Is there any evidence for or against this hypothesis?

indeed: Your insight is so plausible that I suspect you had something 2 do wid
it :-) Our physics does not continually deal with D vast & immeasurable extremes of mass and temperature present @ such an early time as this body was formed. We have theories...from time 2 time. I saw something... days ago..I think it was on YOUTUBE, taken from a TV program...'how the universe works', I THINK it was.
word-to-ya-muthas
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
6 billion solar mass black hole only 1.6 billion years after the formation of the universe. Incredible.

I don't see how something that large could have formed by accretation in that lenght of time. Isn't it more probable that as the quark/gluon soup of the expansion phase of the universe began to cool and condense, these behemoths formed directly from high density regions of the early universe and then galaxies formed around them as their gravity attracted the condensing gas.

Bravo. I like the way you think. I posed a similar question in June on PhysOrg, needless to say , it elicited hostility from an unnamed regular:
"A question to ask of any process in nature as well as in the cosmos is, "What is its function?" Why is a black hole situated in the heart of a galaxy? Could its role be to collect detritus like a drain and recycle and re-emit its energy? Could a black hole's huge mass be keeping some kind of
order in the rest of its galaxy?"
210
1 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2011
6 billion solar mass black hole only 1.6 billion years after the formation of the universe. Incredible.

WIth the known universe being only 13.75 Billion years old! That would tend to indicate, Dis body had to be galactically TINY 4 @ its present mass, or half its mass, it would have eaten at least a third of the known universe as a baby! Conventional wisdom says it died after living a stars life; its fires would have had to start and stop within 1.6 Billion years but, BUT still had the mass to collapse into a Black hole. OR still, this body is the remnant of several short lived stars turned black hole and then collided; but, the remnant dust cloud is 2 big. Unless, a wolf, a marauder, ran through the early Nebula nursery!! Our brothers and sister planets have more complex gases, as if factories sprung up on them...how does the water survive the death grip gravity & there is no trace of more complex gases, or is there?? Your thoughts...
word-to-ya-muthas
210
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 22, 2011

Bravo. I like the way you think. I posed a similar question in June on PhysOrg, needless to say , it elicited hostility from an unnamed regular:
"A question to ask of any process in nature as well as in the cosmos is, "What is its function?" Why is a black hole situated in the heart of a galaxy? Could its role be to collect detritus like a drain and recycle and re-emit its energy? Could a black hole's huge mass be keeping some kind of
order in the rest of its galaxy?"

I remember that discussion; SO VERY SORRY for the often mean-spirited arguments that absolutely needlessly erupt on this site, but, anyway. Just want you to know, I remembered your words and their intent: Quite intelligent and insightful. Too often, we humans are just too darn mean to one another especially when there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be gained!
word-to-ya-muthas
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
Huh? Water everywhere? Claptrap I tells ya... Claptrap...

I done seen never water on da moon.

If water is everywhere, then why do the aliens in the movies keep coming to earth to steal our water and our sexy, sexy, Earth Women?

Explain that one Science boys.... Explain that one..
ScienceLust
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 22, 2011
OK. I liked the article.The comments start off with dissinforming comments (from creationists?)
#1 the universe is more than 1.6 billion years old.
#2 math models do not go wild.
#3 Black holes are in the center because of gravity.
Telekinetic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
OK. I liked the article.The comments start off with dissinforming comments (from creationists?)
#1 the universe is more than 1.6 billion years old.


"The observations therefore reveal a time when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old."
It pays to read first.
210
1 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
OK. I liked the article.The comments start off with dissinforming comments (from creationists?)
#1 the universe is more than 1.6 billion years old.



"The observations therefore reveal a time when the universe was just 1.6 billion years old."
It pays to read first.

DARN IT!!!
I was going to write THAT comment but you type faster than I do...shucks!
word-
210
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
OK. I liked the article.The comments start off with dissinforming comments (from creationists?)
#1 the universe is more than 1.6 billion years old.
#2 math models do not go wild.
#3 Black holes are in the center because of gravity.

Uhhh...dude, no one said the Universe was that young.

and: Math models DO go wild - look at Wall street every now and then and see for yourself what happens when math and humanity meet over a plate of GREED!

Further: The whole of donut IS also in the middle, but it is there because we want it there. This particular Black Hole is staggering in its proportions and youthful. Yet, one has only the Standard Model for their formation which appears to have been violated by this MONSTER.
Creationist? No one...except little ole you has even mentioned such an idea...are you sure you're where you thought you were?
word-
210
3 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2011
Huh? Water everywhere? Claptrap I tells ya... Claptrap...

I done seen never water on da moon.

If water is everywhere, then why do the aliens in the movies keep coming to earth to steal our water and our sexy, sexy, Earth Women?

Explain that one Science boys.... Explain that one..

Intuitively, I suspect, that Earth women are probably more desirable than the Goat-women of Beta-antares 9 or the Slush-mouth-Bag-worm babes of Kathulu 4. I travel a lot you know and I hear these things.
word
Isaacsname
3 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2011
Is it a charged black hole ? Water is a polar molecule...I'm confused. How did the wawa get there ?

..I'll just be over here in the corner playing with my bellybutton if anybody needs me for anything...
jsdarkdestruction
3 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2011
Tuxford, thats a pretty big "if" there.

I dont know, those goat women are pretty good in bed i hear.....
bliskater
5 / 5 (2) Jul 22, 2011
I have to wonder what it would be like that early to produce almost 90,000 times the mass of the Sun worth of oxygen...
and bring it all in close proximity to enough Hydrogen...
and how much might have oxydized other elements...
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2011
However it got there, if you could bottle it and call it Quasar Water, it'd sell like hotcakes.
210
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011

and bring it all in close proximity to enough Hydrogen...
and how much might have oxydized other elements...

THAT's the thing...we need DEAD STARS to MAKE the other elements and our universe is too young to have made very many..! We need newly dead stars who have been pushed all the way past Super Nova stage to have the elements that would be oxidized. This Black Hole is a freak...a super Freak...the kind you don't take home to mother.
word-to-ya-muthas
Deesky
5 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
The Big Bang theory is simply a 'math model gone wild'

The BB model was based on observation first, not math. The math came later and bolstered the theory. Just look at how successful Big Bang nucleosynthesis is.

If LaViolette is correct

He isn't. He's a tired crank, just like you.
PosterusNeticus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
THAT's the thing...we need DEAD STARS to MAKE the other elements and our universe is too young to have made very many..! We need newly dead stars who have been pushed all the way past Super Nova stage


The massive stars that fuse their way to iron and explode don't live nearly as long as relatively puny stars like our own. The lifespans of such massive stars measure millions, not billions of years. So, 1.6 billion years is surely long enough.
Ober
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2011
Well I've seen Maths Gone Wild 23 and Maths Gone Wild 42 and both were very good smut movies. I hope to get the entire BOX set one day.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2011
OK , here's one for the physorg support guys:
A certain religious statement says that the earth was formed from water and out of water. Also at the creation water was separated into two parts with the "sky" separating the parts. All heavenly bodies were placed in the expanse separating the two parts. Water was there from the beginning of creation so the researchers really can claim not to be surprised.
SteveL
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
This article brought up an issue that has been bugging me for a while.

If the universe encompases everything, and it's supposed to be ~13.75 billion year old: When we detect photons from 12 billion light years away should that only mean that it took 12 billion years for that photon to reach us? How did we physically get 12 billion light years away from the source in the first place when we are travelling nowhere near the speed of light away from the source? Physically being ~13.75 billion light years away from a source indicates to me that as we physically move far less than the speed of light away from each other, it took far longer than ~13.75 billion years for us to get this far apart.

It just seems it would be more correct to state that we don't really know how large or old the universe is, because we are limited in our ability to detect photons beyond the ~13.75 billion light year range.
SteveL
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2011
Actually, we may be able to determine fairly closely how old the universe is by calculating the velocity the furthest objects are moving away from us in all directions and calculate how long we have been physically seperated from those objects. One consequence though... While we may find that earth was never the center of the universe, we may be able to determine in which direction the center may lie.
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 23, 2011
Ohh, barakn can grade me a "1" but not explain why. Nice chops there.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2011
What center? There is no center. You haven't been paying attention.

"While we may find that earth was never the center of the universe, we may be able to determine in which direction the center may lie." - Steve L
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
"It just seems it would be more correct to state that we don't really know how large or old the universe is. - Steve L

The age is well known. 13.something billion years - almost known to two decimal places in the fraction now.

As to the size, no one knows. We know the distance to the visible edge which is 13.something billion light years - almost known to two decimal places in the fraction now.

However we don't know if anything exists beyond that visible edge or even if the material past the visible edge is infinite or not.

You haven't been paying attention.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
"How did we physically get 12 billion light years away from the source in the first place when we are travelling nowhere near the speed of light away from the source?" - Steve L

Because as the light was traveling toward us the space between the photon and our detector was increasing.

Here is an alternate but equivalent view for you.

Start with an infinite space where rulers are infinitely long.

Each ruler then spans the entire infinite width of the universe.

Now decrease the ruler size, and the universe will appear to expand. Wavelengths will appear to increase and light that is emitted from a distance will appear to be red shifted.

The universe will still be infinite in extent, but visibly finite and expanding as viewed from everywhere.

Isaacsname
5 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
Steve, you might want to watch Susskind's lectures on FLRW cosmology, youtube, 8 part lecture series.

Just a suggestion. He's funny too.
ZachB
not rated yet Jul 24, 2011
Good comments feed people. Food for thought and all that. What a Titan this geyser is. Awesome. I shall dub it, REALLY OLD FAITHFUL!
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Jul 24, 2011
Earliest watery black hole discovered


Congratulations!

Yes, water and black holes are unexpected companions in a BB created universe.

But it now appears that the universe is infinite and cyclic, powered by dynamic competition between gravitational attraction and repulsive forces between neutrons [1,2].

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

2. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011):

http://journalofc...102.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Pete1983
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2011
@kevinrtrs - There is a reason everyone has ignored your message thus far. They still haven't recovered from the violent facepalm you caused each and every person that has read this page.

Look, I get it, you see this vast cosmic significance when disparate pieces of information can be matched with language. In this case, "water". Hell I remember speculating on numerology a bit as a kid, until I realised it was completely ridiculous.

You have to understand that to people interested in science and physics, you might as well be saying that Douglas Adams is God, because you read Hitchhikers when you were 42, and it was the 42nd day of the year... or something. 42.

Surely somebody can come with a better analogy than mine? Maybe something involving dragons... Christians love dragons. Might make it easier to understand for them.
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 25, 2011
Steve, you might want to watch Susskind's lectures on FLRW cosmology, youtube, 8 part lecture series.

Just a suggestion. He's funny too.

Thank you for the info Issacsname. Very helpful, but I'd fall asleep in his class. Leanord Susskind takes a while to work his way to the point. I prefer my info in a somewhat more compressed format.

One thing I did notice early on in lesson #1: Leonard stated that we don't know how large the universe is and we can't know how large it is. He promised to get to that later, but I'm not to that point in his lessons yet.
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 25, 2011
If we can never know how large the universe is, how can we know hold old it is?
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 25, 2011
Know how old it is...
Silly Foxfire, won't let me edit my posts.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
@SteveL

Based upon the redshifted light of distant objects. Although if you go back far enough, it actually starts to blueshift again, which is very strong evidence for the BB. So for the first 3-4 billion years of the universe, gravity was stronger than dark energy, resulting in blueshift. Yet after this, we get redshift as dark energy started winning and redshifting the light. So with enough of this type of data, you can calculate the age of the universe quite accurately.
jsdarkdestruction
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
Earliest watery black hole discovered


Congratulations!

Yes, water and black holes are unexpected companions in a BB created universe.

But it now appears that the universe is infinite and cyclic, powered by dynamic competition between gravitational attraction and repulsive forces between neutrons [1,2].

1. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press, 19 pages (2011):

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo



it appears that way TO YOU oliver. everytime we try to enlighten you to the flaws in your theory you just post the same tired links we've all read before. Spamming your neutron repulsion nonsense all over the internet science forums will not hide your dirty past of repeatedly molesting all of your children for most of your life and redeem you, To be honest Mr. Manuel I dont think you can be redeemed and that the world will be a better place when you die.
SteveL
not rated yet Jul 26, 2011
@SteveL

Based upon the redshifted light of distant objects. Although if you go back far enough, it actually starts to blueshift again, which is very strong evidence for the BB. So for the first 3-4 billion years of the universe, gravity was stronger than dark energy, resulting in blueshift. Yet after this, we get redshift as dark energy started winning and redshifting the light. So with enough of this type of data, you can calculate the age of the universe quite accurately.
Then these photons from this source ~13.75 billion years ago were created during the big bang and not just from that specific source?

Also, if the source of the photons was ~13.75 billion light years away ~13.75 billion years ago, if we are speading apart and an increased acceration, then how far away should it be now?
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
@V_D: "The universe will still be infinite in extent, but visibly finite and expanding as viewed from everywhere."

Really? An infinite universe? And at what speed does the material in a universe have to physically expand to go from a supposed singularity to an infinite distance in ~13.75 billion years? I'd like to see that math.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2011
@SteveL
Well actually we don't see any photons left over from the big bang (well, beyond the fact that EVERYTHING came from the big bang), but basically the early universe wasn't transparent (too dense still), so we don't really see those initial photons specifically.

Although the light I'm talking about that gets blueshifted is from the very early stars and galaxies that formed in the universe, and that past a certain distance the light starts to blueshift instead of redshift. This is related to the expansion of the universe, which as we knows redshifts. But what happens to say light leaving a neutron star? It blueshifts as it climbs out of the gravity well. This is essentially what was happening to all light in the early universe, as gravity was essentially compressing the light, meanwhile the expansion of the universe was stretching out. For the early life of the universe, the compression was stronger than the stretching. There are some great books on supernova studies on this.
pauldentler
2 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
SteveL....Pete1983,

It seems to me that assuming the age of the Universe is 13.7 b-lightyears can only be based on an assumption that the formation of our solar system occurred from material that was formed and blown out in the earliest stage of the presumed big bang, this of course must place our Milky Way almost exactly at the edge of the universe. The problem with this is the fact that when we look beyond Earth in any 180 degree direction we view other galaxies all the way to the visible edge of the Universe. This being the case, Earth is neither at the edge of the Universe and also must not have been created from material close to the outer edge of whatever the original mass was from which all the visible galaxies were created.

Mathematical laws of probability would suggest our galaxy was created somewhere between the center and outer edge of the original mass, therefore material that was ejected before Milky Way material would be far beyond our present location.
pauldentler
2 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
....here's the way I view the Milky Way's location in the Universe. If we can see other galaxies 13.7 b-LY in opposite directions from Earth, Earth obviously is not the center of the Universe. Draw a circle with Earth as the center, the radius of that circle is a distance of 13.7 b-LY, the diameter is double that, 27.4. So if formation of the Milky Way was not at the leading edge of ejected material from the big bang, there must be photons that are forever lost to visibilty. The minimum size of the universe is beyond 27.4 b-LY, but we can never calculate it because we will never be able to view the original light of the creation of all the galaxies, those photons are moving faster than the present expansion & thus forever lost for viewing.
Pete1983
5 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
@Pauldentler - Sorry mate, but you're thinking a bit 3 dimensionally there. There is no centre, there is no point of reference, it's all relative baby!

At this point in time we're still operating on the principle that the universe looks the same in all directions from any location. The universe likes non-locality seemingly. So we're no nearer the edge than the closest galaxy to us, or the farthest (seemingly).
pauldentler
3 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2011
@Pauldentler - Sorry mate, but you're thinking a bit 3 dimensionally there. There is no centre, there is no point of reference, it's all relative baby!

I wasn't suggesting there is a center to the Universe, only that Earth (and by extension, the Milky Way) is not where it can be located. If the Milky Way were located on the very edge of the Universe (that is right at a boundary), only in half our line of sight from the Milky Way would we see other galaxies, shift that line of sight 180 degrees and there would be only a vacant expanse (no galaxies or anything else), but that is not what we see. What we see is a somewhat uniform distribution of galaxies. Current technology limits us to observe only 13.7 b-LY in each direction. Someday we will be able to observe far beyond that, and I expect we will encounter the same type and manner of distribution of galaxies as we presently observe within the 13.7 b-LY limit of current technology.
Pete1983
3 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2011
@Paul,

no worries, I think I misread your original post then. I thought you were stating something different.

More news stories

How many moons does Venus have?

There are dozens upon dozens of moons in the Solar System, ranging from airless worlds like Earth's Moon to those with an atmosphere (most notably, Saturn's Titan). Jupiter and Saturn have many moons each, ...