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

[APOD Robot]

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 >>

[/b]

[BMAONE23]

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

[Beyond]

They took a picture of empty space...

[Ann]

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

Ann

[Krell1956]

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]

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]

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.

[Indigo_Sunrise]

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!

[Ann]

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!

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

[Boomer12k]

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]

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!

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

:---[===] *

[henrystar]

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!

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]

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

[NGC3314]

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)



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.

[ritwik]

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]

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.

[Chris Peterson]

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.

[Tszabeau]

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.

[Chris Peterson]

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.

[neufer]

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.

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?>>

---

<<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.>>

---

<<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.>>

[NGC3314]

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]

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?

[Chris Peterson]

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!

[tomatoherd]

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???

[neufer]

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.