Another reality check

[Shpongled]

Wow. This happened 13 billion years ago and we just now finally saw it. Crazy.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/29/gamma.ray.burst.space/index.html

(CNN) -- Edo Berger got an alert early last Thursday morning when a satellite detected a 10-second blast of energy known as a gamma ray burst coming from outer space.


The exploding star was up to 100 times larger than our own sun, pictured above.
1 of 2

Telescopes around the world swiveled to focus on the explosion, soon picking up infrared radiation, which is produced after gamma rays in this kind of event. Berger was ready to view the visible light, which should have followed.

It never arrived.

"We were kind of blown away. We immediately knew what that meant," Berger said.

What it meant was that he was looking at the oldest thing ever spotted -- an enormous star exploding 13 billion years ago.

"At that point the age of the universe was only 600 million years," he said. In other words, Berger said, he was looking "95 percent of the way back to the beginning of time."

The star which exploded was 30 to 100 times larger than our own sun, and when it died, it gave off "about million times the amount of energy the sun will release in its entire lifetime," Berger told CNN by phone from Harvard University, where he is an assistant professor of astronomy.

Its death throes produced so much energy that "momentarily, we can essentially see it anywhere in the universe," Berger said.

The object, known as GRB 090423, is about 200 million years older than the previous record-holder for oldest object ever seen.

Berger isn't just interested in the record books, though -- the gamma ray burst extended the frontiers of human knowledge about the history of the universe.

"We learn that already massive stars were around 600 million years after the universe formed," Berger said. "We suspected that, but now we have proof. Now that we know these objects are so bright, in the next few years we should be able to pinpoint exactly at what stage in the evolution of the universe stars and galaxies formed."

"There are theories" about when that happened, Berger said, "But they are all over the place. People let their imaginations run wild."

Given the discovery last week -- which was announced Tuesday -- Berger thinks it is possible that he will soon have a clear answer.

"If we talk in a few years, hopefully I would be able to tell you exactly when that happened," he said.

The gamma radiation from GRB 090423, which took 13 billion years to reach earth, was detected by a NASA satellite called Swift. The infrared radiation was detected by the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii.

 

[slashvanyoung]

These distances and time spans are so beyond imaginable.

It's kinda strange, looking at the night sky, knowing that many of these shining bright stars don't exist since millions - or even billions - of years.

Isn't it fascinating that there's nothing we can actually experience in present? Everything we see, hear etc. is past... even if it's just for fractions of a second.

I think, the first time I was really conscious about these things was when I stood far off from the stage at a festival. You can see things way before you hear them.

 

[Dead_Lioness]

These distances and time spans are so beyond imaginable.

It's kinda strange, looking at the night sky, knowing that many of these shining bright stars don't exist since millions - or even billions - of years.

Isn't it fascinating that there's nothing we can actually experience in present? Everything we see, hear etc. is past... even if it's just for fractions of a second.

I think, the first time I was really conscious about these things was when I stood far off from the stage at a festival. You can see things way before you hear them.

Exactly!!
It's so amazing...

 

[Anvil]

Just wow.

 

[WhiteBeastofWotan]

thats pretty neat

 

[MoonlightOrchid]

I remain speachless... O.O

 

[ScientistOfDarkness]

Incredible. Everything seems so tiny and insignificant when I think of things like this.

 

[Captain Beard]

And then if you're a believer in the multiversal theory, even this universe is a teeny tiny thing in a foamy sea of other universe bubbles.

 

[Liverslapper]

"We were kind of blown away"

 

[Cat5Messiah]

I remember reading this a couple days ago, very cool shit indeed. Though, not related directly to gamma rays, this did remind me of the solar flare that occured with our sun in 2003. Check it out, Kevin:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mpeg/223138main_flare_mpeg.mpeg
or
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/mov/223139main_flare_qt.mov


Source: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/soho_sunquake.html

@David: It's becoming more and more believed due to the information regarding to String Theory, in my opinion. Previously, String Theory and the possibilities of multiple universes/parallel universes used to outcasted but nowadays, they're becoming more and more popular and accepted.

 

[Super Mahrio]

That's incredible! 13 billion years! wow!

 

[Kvlt Wench]

This makes me miss my astronomy class.

 

[Liverslapper]

"At that point the age of the universe was only 600 million years," he said. In other words, Berger said, he was looking "95 percent of the way back to the beginning of time."


I'm not a fond believer of this theory. No one would know how old the universe is, or the beginning of time for that matter.

 

[Super Mahrio]

I'm not a fond believer of this theory. No one would know how old the universe is, or the beginning of time for that matter.

+1

 

[Cat5Messiah]

"At that point the age of the universe was only 600 million years," he said. In other words, Berger said, he was looking "95 percent of the way back to the beginning of time."


I'm not a fond believer of this theory. No one would know how old the universe is, or the beginning of time for that matter.

Well, they say that the Big Bang (which wasn't an explosion....) was the beginning of this universe as we know it today and is based as the beginning of time. Though, when the universe expanded (after the Big Bang) there was matter already existant therefore, there obviously was our universe prior to the Big Bang but apparently just highly condensed.

As far as time is concerned, you can't really justify "the beginning of time" because well, time is inaccurate and not universal. Time is relative to different factors, including relativity to gravitational pull, according to general relativity. Time is also relative to the observer. For example, according to Stephen Hawking, if you were in a black hole where the gravitational pull is very great if not infinite, time would stand still. Viewing our planet from a planet or body of higher gravity would cause the observer to see our planet move in what we would consider 'fast forward' (unless I'm having a dyslexic moment).

Also, it's hard to determine how old (in our time) the universe is because we don't have an absolute to determine the universe's expansion rate. There is an equation that they base the expansion of the universe on but again, it's not absolute. Consider this:

Speed of Light: approx. 186,000 MPS (approx. 670,000,000 MPH, approx. 244,550,000,000 MPY)
Age of our Universe: approx. 14,000,000,000 years old
Diameter of Universe: approx. 93,000,000,000 light years
Expansion rate of the Universe: ?

We use observation methods to determine the rate at which the universe is expanding but what about previously when we didn't have the capability of observation as we have today? The expansion rate varies meaning, it has slowed down. We say that the universe is 14 billion years old but how do we know for sure? Did we observe the Big Bang when it reached us? We determine how old something is by determining how long it takes something to reach us, based off of measuring the body's light speed. Plus, other numbers are based off of what is observable. The diameter of the universe is approx. 93,000,000,000 light years because it's based off of a number we have observed. Everything in astronomy/physics that deal with these factors is based off of theory, not fact simply because they cannot concretely prove it which is what CERN is trying to correct.

 

[Liverslapper]

Everything in astronomy/physics that deal with these factors is based off of theory, not fact simply because they cannot concretely prove it which is what CERN is trying to correct.

Right on the money.

 

[WhiteBeastofWotan]

Yes, but when scientists say theory, they don't mean "educated guess". They mean that all evidence points towards that theory.

 

[Cat5Messiah]

Good point but evidence can point to many theories, which is why there are so many theories. Also, sometimes it takes theories to be justified as reality potential some time while other older theories may be laid to rest due to new evidence and analyzing.