Like .03% or something crazy like that?
Maybe I missed a link that says this. Just thought I'd ask and say how much I enjoy seeing images like these, because of the TRUTH it shows of what is really out there... on an Eternal scale.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
~The MealIf astronomers made the Hubble Ultra Deep Field observation over the entire sky, how long would it take?
The whole sky contains 12.7 million times more area than the Ultra Deep Field. To observe the entire sky would take almost 1 million years of uninterrupted observing.
How wide is the Ultra Deep Field's slice of the heavens?
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is called a "pencil beam" survey because the observations encompass a narrow, yet "deep" piece of sky. Astronomers compare the Ultra Deep Field view to looking through an eight-foot-long soda straw.
The Ultra Deep Field's patch of sky is so tiny it would fit inside the largest impact basin that makes up the face on the Moon. Astronomers would need about 50 Ultra Deep Fields to cover the entire Moon.
We are the center of the visible universe.BMAONE wrote:IF YOU LOOK AT THE ULTRA DEEP FIELD PICTURES AND CONSIDER THAT IT WAS TAKEN IN ONE DIRECTION ABOUT AS FAR AWAY (BACK) AS WE CAN SEE, DOES THE KNOWN UNIVERSE EXTEND THE SAME DISTANCE AWAY ON ALL SIDES? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE IN THE CENTER OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE? OR CAN WE SEE FARTHEST BACK IN TIME IN ONLY ONE DIRECTION?
I'm not certain the above is a correct statement. We already see the light from the Big Bang. If the visible universe is getting bigger, it is because the universe continues to expand. I do not believe that any more light is reaching us than before.However, every second, every day, the "visible" universe gets larger because more light arrives at Earth.
I take his query to mean "What area of the celestial sphere does the UDF cover?"what percentage of our visible universe is this Ultra Deep Field image of?
Thanks for the misinformation. You seem to have your units confused.RJ Emery wrote:Arramon asks:
I take his query to mean "What area of the celestial sphere does the UDF cover?"what percentage of our visible universe is this Ultra Deep Field image of?
I did a Google search using the keywords "arcsec hubble ultra deep field." From the page hits, it appears the area covered by the Ultra Deep Field (UDF) is 0.2 sq arcsec. By contrast, the area for the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) was 90 sq arcsec. There are 86,400 (24x60x60) arcsec in any celestial great circle. Without doing the calculation, it is an incredibly small area percentage wise.
Arramon-=Arramon=- wrote:um... holy unlimited bliss batman..!
So then... who out there still thinks we are the only ones here?
=)
So if it would take 1 million uninterrupted years to observe the full range of what encompasses us, what if there were hundreds, or thousands of telescopes doing this at one time? All capable of the Ultra Deep Field views?
'Course it would help... but how much time could that save if more instruments were created to do this, or the Ultra Deep Field was enhanced to provide even more coverage, with the same depth...?
Too many galaxies...!
![]()
Hmm... what if that 'straw' could be made to look even further?
What would it take to peer through the CMB?
Also... is there such a technology that could send out a light source (laser even) that could send information back to earth? I'm not sure how far our science has come, but what if we could bounce a beam off of some object in space and have it return to our general area, information stored within it of what it's seen, so that we could analyze... CAN information be stored within a light source?
My mind won't stop... =)
I luv space!!!
sure black holes can move. they experience forces from all other objects just like you and I.path wrote:Arramon-=Arramon=- wrote:um... holy unlimited bliss batman..!
So then... who out there still thinks we are the only ones here?
=)
So if it would take 1 million uninterrupted years to observe the full range of what encompasses us, what if there were hundreds, or thousands of telescopes doing this at one time? All capable of the Ultra Deep Field views?
'Course it would help... but how much time could that save if more instruments were created to do this, or the Ultra Deep Field was enhanced to provide even more coverage, with the same depth...?
Too many galaxies...!
![]()
Hmm... what if that 'straw' could be made to look even further?
What would it take to peer through the CMB?
Also... is there such a technology that could send out a light source (laser even) that could send information back to earth? I'm not sure how far our science has come, but what if we could bounce a beam off of some object in space and have it return to our general area, information stored within it of what it's seen, so that we could analyze... CAN information be stored within a light source?
My mind won't stop... =)
I luv space!!!
I think that the question you raised was part of a famous bet. Stephen Hawking conceded he was wrong that no light/matter comes out of a black hole with the recent statement that "information" can never be destroyed. He conceded the bet saying that whatever information passes through a black hole remains intact. He paid the $100, but I suspect we have not heard the end of this. Hence, your question, "Can information be stored within a light source?" might receive a positive response from Mr. Hawking.
Is it space you love, or physics?
I happen to think that black holes are great recyclers, transforming matter we know into things we don't have the physics to explain yet (dark matter anyone?). I also believe black holes move.