Why can't the Hubble telescope capture images of the start of the universe?

Great question, I don’t have any answers for you but I look forward to seeing what the physics flutherers give us.

According to this article, the successor to Hubble should be able to see further back:

“The proto-galaxy is only visible at the farthest infrared wavelengths observable by Hubble. Observations of earlier times, when the first stars and galaxies were forming, will require Hubble’s successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).”

@RareDenver Thanks, I’ve been pondering this question for a while…

@thorninmud Cool! I wonder when the successor will be sent out, and why the Hubble isn’t able to look into those last few hundred million years, seems the technology could do it for the first several billion :P Maybe there is a huge difference in the infrared wavelengths the closer you get to the beginning.

Because what they are trying to do is impossible….

..the beginning can;t be see with naked eyes…

and Their concept of the universe is in many way inaccurate.

What @thorninmud said, plus the fact that the early universe emitted only heat, x-rays, and cosmic rays, not light. Most current telescopes gather light as the means of seeing distant objects.

@kess

“Because what they are trying to do is impossible….”

From what I just read it seems it will be possible in several years time :)

“the beginning can;t be see with naked eyes…”

But 480 million years (which isn’t long in the scheme of things) from the beginning can be seen with a telescope…

“and Their concept of the universe is in many way inaccurate”

It’s the best one we’ve got so far…

…now that’s all covered we can get back to some helpful answers! haha

We can see 12.7 million years into the past because the light from that galaxy at that time is JUST reaching hubble telescope. If hubble telescope was 12.7 million light years away from our galaxy, it would be seeing our galaxy as it was 12.7 million years ago.

For example, if you look up at the sun right now, you are not actually looking at the sun right now. You are seeing the sun, exactly as it looked, about 6–7 minutes ago. It takes around that long for the light that actually shows you the image of the sun to reach Earth. Now think of the sun as this galaxy, and you as hubble telescope, and earth as OUR galaxy. You can’t see Earth 6–7 minutes ago because the light only takes a tiny fraction of a second to reach you and it already did, 6–7 minutes ago.

@CaptainHarley I don’t know a whole lot about this but I thought heat emitted light, or should I say light emits heat, you can’t have one without the other? Must do some research…but it’s good to learn from the jellies instead.

@TooBlue

I don’t have all the answers, but it’s my understanding that matter was absorbing most of the heat as it slowly morphed into light-generating bodies. Someone correct me on this if I’m not accurate, please. : )

Just read the James Webb telescope will be launched in 2014, kinda exciting.

It is impossible to see the Big Bang. We were in it. We moved out from that spot. The energy from that moment reached this spot long before we did.

Illustration:

Imagine listening to a carpenter at work 100 meters away. You are hearing almost 1 second into the past. You hear his hammer hit a nail almost a second after it happens.

Trying to see the Big Bang would be like hitting a nail yourself, then running 100 yards away, and expecting to hear the the hammer strike.

@jaytkay Okay, but I still don’t get how we can see 12.7 billion years into the past then. And I thought that because Earth was created much much later than the big bang, we technically didn’t come straight from it, but evolved and are still seeing the light emitting from the bang years later because it takes sooo long for it to reach us.

The instruments on the Hubble were not designed to pick up those regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
This is an excellent chart that compares the Hubble and James Webb scopes
I can’t wait!

@TooBlue Please read my prior post, it explains how this works.

We can see 12.7 billion years into the past because the light showing us images from that time is JUST NOW REACHING the hubble telescope. We can’t see the light that would show us images from 12.7 billion years ago here in our own galaxy, because it arrived at the location the hubble telescope is at now, right around 12.7 billion years ago.

If the hubble telescope were 12.7 billion light years away from our galaxy, it would be able to see our galaxy 12.7 billion years ago, because the light would JUST NOW be reaching it.

Its a simple speed of light situation.

Sorry I must’ve missed your post. We used to only see galaxies as far as 12 billion light years away, then it was 12.2, 12.5 etc. now it’s 12.7 so with the new telescope it should eventually capture light from a galaxy 13.2 billion light years away, soon. So wouldn’t that be the start of the universe?

@TooBlue Earth was created much much later than the big bang, we technically didn’t come straight from it,

True, “we” and the Earth were not there, but all our ingredients were.

Yeah, I know all that ever has been and ever will be was condensed into a ball of infinite density, but when the big bang occured, the universe started expanding and as it expanded it formed galaxies, stars etc. And the light travelled with it, so once Earth was formed light was still reaching us from the bang, so isn’t this still visible? Seeing as everything we view in the sky is as it was millions or billions of years ago? I don’t know if I’m missing something here, or maybe I just can’t get my head around it.

By the way, to correct myself, the universe is 13.75 billion years, not 13.2, 13.2 billion is the observable distance, but the 480–500 million years is the unobservable distance. The gap keeps closing which is why I wonder why we haven’t reached 13.75 billion years, (or why it is so hard to do so) and therefore light from the big bang.

@worriedguy “The instruments on the Hubble were not designed to pick up those regions of the electromagnetic spectrum.”

That makes sense. But if the soon-to-be-launched James Webb telescope is designed to reach and pick up those regions, does that mean we can see the earliest parts of the universe and possibly just after the big bang itself?

Everything we see in the Universe is how we view it at our angle, as fast as the light gets to us. We can view the explosion of stars, the collision of gallaxies and things we see are not as it was millions or billions of years ago… it depends on the distance. Stars and planets are born and die continually.

We have detected the background radiation from the big bang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

The big bang wasn’t just light, in fact, they’re discussing now that it wasn’t so much a ‘bang’ but a ‘puhhhhh’ (like a cork). There is some interesting theories coming out now to argue the string theorists argument.

The new telescope isn’t going to detect the left overs from the big bang, but just the earliest signs of the first stars.

From the NASA site: JWST will be the greatest telescope launched into space. Its infrared cameras will detect the faint light from the first stars and galaxies to form in the universe, over 13 billion years ago.

There were not instantly formed stars and galaxies upon the explosion (if it was that) of the big bang.

sorry… I just realised I my have burst some bubbles here… It will still surely be exciting.

I think I’m starting to understand it now…lol

Here is a pretty good article for you.

http://yalescientific.kthx.us/2010/10/journey-to-the-beginning-of-the-universe-hubble-telescope-reveals-most-distant-galaxies-ever-found/

That was a really informative article, thanks. It answered a few of my questions.

“Scientists are hoping that this new telescope will be able to detect galaxies formed almost immediately after the Big Bang.”

But I wonder just how soon after the Big Bang they will be. Guess we’ll find out soon enough. So basically the structure or field of space a few hundred million years after the bang or “puhhh” is full of white noise and radiation (but no light?)** So it’s hard for telescopes to detect exactly what happened and what it looked like.

**“For the first 400,000 years of the universe it was so hot that all the gas was plasma. All the free electrons bouncing around kept scattering light making the universe opaque!”

So that’s why we won’t be able to see the big bang?

I really hope I’m getting close here…

@TooBlue

So far as we know right now, yes, you are correct. : )

Part of the problem is also that space itself is moving. So distance between us and other observable objects increases faster than light travels. What this means for the possibility of observing the big bang…I’m not sure…

You know what’s funny, I was reading through all the posts and was about to post myself when @iamthemob beat me too it. He’s absolutely right.
The Hubble can see back 12.7 billion years (or whatever), but the universe is actually something like 70 billion light years in diameter (I made that number up, but I know it’s in the ballpark). The reason is, as @iamthemob said, that space itself is expanding, and that’s allowed to happen at far faster than the speed of light. I realize it’s a difficult concept to understand, but it’s true. Look at @iamthemob link. Also, if you want to drill down on this more, the author of that post, Fraser Cain is a co-host of the podcast Astronomy Cast where he discusses this. If you’re interested, I can find it for you.

Not only are the galaxies moving apart, but the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. If this continues unchecked, there will come a time when galaxies are receeding so rapidly from each other that the rate of expansion will exceed the speed of light and deprive us of the ability to even see the light from other galaxies. For all practical purposes, they will have ceased to exist.

@CaptainHarley lol, what?

It’s true. When the expansion of the universe becomes so rapid that it exceeds lightspeed, we will no longer be able to see other galaxies.

OK, would love to see where you read that.

Here’s a reference I pulled out of thin air: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

Well, first, this is a theory. And you said ‘unchecked’ like there would be something we could do about it and that made me laugh, and then you said ‘deprive us of the ability to see other galaxies’, but at the age this would occur in the Universe our entire solar system and the galaxy we call ‘home’, The Milky Way, will have been obliterated. Theoretical physics on this scale has very very little do with the 9 o’clock news.

@cazzie

I can only type out the words, cazzie. I cannot interpret them for you. : )

@CaptainHarley I dont think they are actually moving faster than the speed of light. At least thats not what I gathered from this article its just perceived that way since we too are moving away from the galaxies . The light however will eventually catch back up to us so they can be seen. Though as cazzie said, we’ll be long gone by then anyway.

@uberbatman

No, once that process starts, and all lthe other galaxies wink out, the only way it can ever be reversed is for them to slow down again or even begin drawing together somehow.

I have a sneaking suspicion that something resembling the human race will still be around at the end of time, barring some sort of cosmic accident that wipes out the entire race. That seems highly unlikely, especially once we become dispersed across, first our own galaxy and then others. As a matter of fact, when you couple star travel with genetic modification, there could well be several different races of humans… whether interfertile or not. : )))

@CaptainHarley I dont seem to follow why though. I mean why it will even wink out. Like ok the galaxy is traveling in the opposite direction, but its light is still being emitted in all directions so in theory it should still reach us no matter how long it takes.

I would also have to think that if the acceleration is from the big bang and not dark matter driving us apart than some galaxies would still end up “close” to one another so their light will still be seen between each other.

space is just so friggin big its hard to think about sometimes :P

@uberbatman – space is theoretically moving at a speed greater than the speed of light. Therefore, the galaxies are moving away from each other at a speed greater than that of light. Because the space is expanding at a speed faster than light, at some point the space between becomes so great that light cannot traverse it anymore.

Think of it like being on a train and running in the opposite direction the train is heading. It doesn’t matter how fast you run – you aren’t going to get past the point you started – and in reality, you’re moving away from that point.

@uberbatman

Yes, the light would eventually reach us if the galaxies stopped retreating from each other, but as long as they retreat from each other at a rate faster than the speed of light, light cannot bridge the distance.

Some galaxies close to us, such as the Andromeda galaxy, would be visible long after all the others had moved too far too fast and disappeared. But eventually, if the acceleration continues, even those galaxies would “disappear.”

@iamthemob and @CaptainHarley i seem to be struggling with this concept. I mean I get that theyre moving away faster than light and all, but the light is still reaching us today, as they move further, yes it will take longer to get to us but wont the light that left millions of years ago still be on its way toward earth? Especially with all these super high powered telescopes we have. I mean as it stands now we can almost see all they way back to the big bang so I dont really understand why we wouldnt be able to see the residual light from these galaxies, even if they are moving ridiculously fast away?

@uberbatman – But it left at a time when space hadn’t accelerated to the point it had now. That light is billions of years old (as mentioned) – I think of it as having left at a time when the train was just leaving the station. (that’s a poor metaphor, but it’s how I resolved it), so it was going much slower and you, running, could get past the point where you started.

@uberbatman

Telescopes can only see light which left stars when those stars were moving away from us at speeds that were below lightspeed. That light will continue to move toward us at the speed of light. When the last of that light reaches us, it will seem as if those galaxies wink out of existence since no further light from them will ever be able to reach us.

ok that makes more sense. thanks, one other question , so the stars wouldnt leave a light trail behind them that would be observable?

Oh, the light will be there, it just won’t go anywhere that it can be seen. Keep in mind that it’s NOT the movement of the stars which causes this, but the UNIVERSAL expansion of the entire universe.

@uberbatman – Remember…it’s the space that is growing and that light behaves like a wave and a particle.

There wouldn’t be a trail because the light isn’t receding back – it is more that it has more and more space to traverse.

Imagine instead that light leaving a star now is the runner at a starting line, and earth is another runner, waiting for the first runner’s baton. But when the starter pistol goes off, both runners start running. And the second runner (earth) runs twice as fast as the first runner.

In order for the “light” to be perceived by “earth” it has to pass on the baton. However, it never gets there…and because “earth” is moving faster and faster from it and “light” can only go at its current pace and no faster, “earth” will never perceive it.

Now, if the two runners had started 100ft apart, if “earth” walked 100ft back it would “see” the light. However, they both ran, since “earth” is running faster, if it walked 100ft back “light” would no longer be there.

@uberbatman The best analogy I heard was on an Astronomy Cast podcast. It’s like a moving conveyor belt. The conveyor belt itself can move at superluminal speeds because that’s the expansion of space itself. However, any movement ON the conveyor belt needs to be at the speed of light.

ahhhh thanks everyone, I understand now :)

Because the photons were essentially trapped. Only after 400,000 years the universe became transparent. The “oldest” photons we can observe today come from cosmic microwave background radiation.