According to estimates, these are the echoes of the explosion of a star no less than 12.8 billion light years away
NASA's Swift satellite discovered the most distant gamma-ray burst ever detected. The explosion, which received the nickname GRB 080913 (where GRB stands for gamma-ray burst and the following number is the year, month and serial number of the burst. According to estimates, these are echoes of the explosion of a star at a distance of no less than 12.8 billion light years.
"This is the most impressive gamma-ray burst that Swift has seen," said lead mission scientist Neil Gehrels at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. "It reaches us almost from the edge of the visible universe."
Due to the limited speed of light, looking far into the universe also means looking back in time. Thus GRB 080913 provides a glimpse into time, as this burst occurred only 825 million years after the Big Bang.
The star that caused the bullet that crossed the universe died when the universe was less than a seventh of its current age. This outburst was accompanied by the death of a star from one of the first generations of the early universe, says Patricia Shady of the Mollard Space Science Laboratory at University College London, who organized Swift's observation of the event.
Gamma rays from the distant outburst triggered Swift's Eruption Alert System on September 13 at 01:47 a.m. EST. The spacecraft was able to locate the event in the constellation Aridianus and tuned in to observe the spot. Less than two minutes after the alert, the Swefit X-ray telescope began observing the area and found an unknown source of X-rays in its decaying phase.
Astronomers on the ground also watched what could be seen after the event. They used the 2.2-meter telescope at the European Southern Observatory in La Silla, Chile, and a group of German astronauts from the Max Planck Institute who manned the telescope were able to photograph the glow left behind by the disappearance of the object that produced the eruption.
The telescope's software listens to Swift's alerts and automatically adjusts to the location of the burst. Then, the visible light and near-infrared light telescope, GROUND, observes the bone at the same time. "Our first exposure began about a minute after the X (Swift) telescope began imaging, said Joachim Gernia, of the Max Planck Institute for Experimental Physics in Garching, Germany, who photographed the events after the eruption.
This is the continuation of a successful year for the telescope that was launched in 2004. In March, he photographed the brightest gamma-ray burst visible to the human eye despite occurring billions of light-years away, and earlier, in January, the spacecraft's instruments captured the first X-rays from a new supernova days before astronomers saw the explosion in the optical field.
27 תגובות
Ami:
In my opinion, the fact that belief in logic is a false belief must be ruled out because without it we simply cannot think or speak and if we rule it out we cannot draw any conclusion from this negation because the entire process of drawing conclusions is based on logic.
In other words, beyond the fact that what you are proposing is clearly unreasonable and goes against all the experience of all mankind, even if we accept the proposal we will not be able to do anything.
Sometimes in a dream something makes sense to us for some reason. You fly in the sky or dive to a depth of two kilometers in the sea and swim with all kinds of animals without any equipment on you... in a dream it looks fine. In a dream you do not doubt this reality.
Another option could be, let's say, someone does an experiment on you - for example, an external intelligent entity that imposes experimental conditions on you that you are not aware of (and just for the sake of discussion I will say that it seems completely crazy to me, because I find it hard to believe that we are in such a situation and I don't believe in God anyway)
Another option is that simply the logic, as logical as it seems, is wrong and limited. We are only human.
Finally (and maybe not lastly), there is of course the option that certain laws work completely differently in different places. It is common to say today that nothing is unique to our ball. But would you like to know if in another galaxy the masses actually repel each other? It is possible to exercise logic within reasonable limits because then the risk that the logic is wrong is small. I find a lot of sense in Sabdarmish's approach which takes into account the possibility that things seen from here are not seen from there.
Logic is a nice and good thing for logic puzzles and even for science. But the laws of logic are also faith. Belief that reason stands on its own. Q A is A and there is no other way. that it is not at all up to us whether we think about it or not. It is certainly possible to say many things in the name of logic (I know, my profession is a scientist and I am required to use logic every day), but the possibility that this belief in logic is a false belief cannot be ruled out.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
Ami:
I don't know what local logic is.
I never said that it is guaranteed that we won't know more things and maybe even others in the future.
I just noticed that in my previous response I wrote 20 instead of 19 and if you read my response you will see that I qualified my words (although it goes without saying that all my claims are based, as they should be, on current knowledge).
It seems to me that claims based on contemporary knowledge are preferable to claims that are not based at all (and especially those that are in contradiction to contemporary knowledge which, by definition, is the only knowledge we have).
Michael,
The fact that our local logic does not allow us to overcome one or another paradox for now, still does not mean that things are within the limits of our vision.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
A. Ben-Ner
Transmitting information at a speed exceeding the speed of light is not possible.
I already said this in response 16 and clarified the matter (at Nimrod's request) in response 20.
Mica…:
Congratulations on the name change.
This is also an original way of trying to answer a question I asked before.
Nice idea but not suitable because I asked for a *scientific* discovery and also one that no one knows.
Am I to conclude that you have discovered some mutual acquaintance?
Last gathering..Last gathering...Cruise of the skies
Do you hear?..for————————————————--)))))))))
And that was the last message to the "torn" bipppppppppppppppp.
Case: restoration of origin.
To Ami Bachar
It is known from Hubble's law that the expansion speed of the universe is not constant and is proportional to the distance.
The more distant the galaxies, the greater their observed escape velocity. The most distant galaxies observed, their speed of receding is almost the speed of light. What you are actually asking is, are there more distant galaxies that are moving away at a speed that exceeds the speed of light (expansion of space) and therefore they are not visible because, the light emitted from them
moving only at the speed of light.
In the lecture of Prof. Avi Leib of Yale University at the Astronomical Club of Tel Aviv University, about two years ago, he stated that this situation is possible, according to the theory, which does not set an upper limit to the speed of the expansion of space.
Therefore, the future of the universe predicts the "cold and dark universe" in which each galaxy will be alone, isolated, without any light connection with neighboring galaxies.
Cold - because of the thermodynamics of expansion. Dark - because of the speed of expansion.
Therefore, even today, we can refer to the visible universe as a segment of a larger universe that was "torn" from us due to an escape velocity greater than the speed of light.
The only way, probably, to reach that part of the universe from which we were "torn" is through quantum technology of information transfer, at a speed exceeding the speed of light. At least theoretically this is possible according to quantum theory.
By the way - I didn't mean that you would kill your grandfather after your grandmother was already pregnant 🙂
Nimrod:
When they say something cannot be done it is always with a limited warranty.
They tend to say this when two conditions are met:
1. No idea how to do this
2. The possibility of doing so is in contradiction to theories that have received much confirmation.
Both of these conditions are met in the subject of information transfer through quantum entanglement.
The first condition is met because only particles whose "complicated" property we do not know can be part of a "complicated" pair of particles.
Measuring the property on one particle does allow the results of its measurement on the other particle to be expected, but eliminates the entanglement of the particles.
The second condition is met because the existence of such a mechanism would be in contradiction to the theory of relativity and would allow, according to it, the killing of your own grandfather before your parents were born.
Of course, there is a theoretical possibility that both problems will be solved - that an idea will be found that solves the first problem and that the theory of relativity will be proven wrong, but that is not currently on the horizon.
Michael,
Entanglement does not contradict relativity, because information cannot be transmitted in this way.
I would appreciate it if you could detail why it is not possible to transfer information using this method alone, but it is possible to create an effect faster than the speed of light.
Michael,
According to experiments conducted, the results showed an effect faster than the speed of light, I would appreciate it if you could find me a source that disproves this.
Nimrod:
There is no contradiction between quantum entanglement and relativity.
Despite everything that happens in it, it does not allow the transfer of material or information faster than the speed of light.
The inflationary universe did expand faster than the speed of light and this is not so surprising once you accept the assumption of an inflationary universe.
Imagine a row of books where, every second, the space between every two books expands to a whole book and a new book is created in it.
As time passes, the ends of the line move away from each other at an increasing rate and at a certain point the speed of their moving away will exceed the speed of light.
This does not contradict the theory of relativity because there is no acceleration in relation to space but a change of space itself.
Ami
There are models that describe swelling from the size of an atom to the size of the entire visible universe.. For the size of a galaxy, these are the "conservative" models..
Wikipedia says otherwise
Google the entry - Wikipedia, the inflationary universe.
What I said is correct. But actually, between us, no one can be sure what happened there.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
From the series of lectures that can be downloaded on the Haifa University website, on basic astronomy, I understood that the inflation of the universe brought it from the size of an atom to the size of an orange. And it was faster than the speed of light. Then there was a slower spread. There is a very big difference between an orange and a medium galaxy in terms of distance in the context of the speed of light. There may not be an abysmal difference in sizes in terms of the universe, but we are talking about light time and information, which seems to me to be related to each other.
to Arya Seter
True, as you said, we must not forget that the speed of light is constant and does not depend on the relative speed between the source and the observer. But an experiment has never been done to prove that the speed of light is the same even on different dates, that is, is the speed of light today equal to the speed of light a year ago? And in a year? According to the simple universe idea that I developed, the speed of light changes by cm per second per year.
I would be happy if someone would do an experiment to prove or disprove this statement.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to Nimrod Matter is indeed created out of nothing and is faced with negative energy so that the total energy-mass in the universe is zero. Besides, matter and antimatter and ionizers are created all the time and everywhere.
And for the rest of the debaters - don't forget that the speed of light is constant, and does not depend on the relative speed between the source and the viewer.
There have been too many arguments against the speed of light in recent years, according to what is accepted the speed of light was the highest speed in the universe and nothing can exceed it (the speed refers to the medium of emptiness), the explanation of the expansion of space in the past at a speed higher than the speed of light, the phenomenon of quantum entanglement that creates an effect at real speed immediately higher than the speed of light, experiments that showed that through the medium of cesium light moves faster than C, in the end there may be a correction to the matter of the speed of light, what makes me the most new about it is the quantum entanglement, which stands in opposition to C as an upper limit to the speed of anything in the universe
Lami Bachar,
It's clear that the universe expanded at a speed higher than the speed of light, I don't understand what other meaning the term "big bulge" has, after all, we're not dealing with dough and balloons, we're talking about physicists, and when a physicist calls something "big" you should start to worry.
To illustrate what that big inflation is, in a billionth of a billionth of the first billionth of the big inflation, a space the size of an atom swelled to the size of the entire Milky Way galaxy... (a billionth of a millimeter per 100 thousand light years).
To Ami Bakr and Or
First of all, let's write down the facts.
When about ten to the power of minus 35 seconds passed from the big bang, a very rapid expansion began, it was faster than the speed of light. This is the so-called "inflationary" period. For 10 to the minus 32 seconds the universe will reach the size of a medium galaxy. Since the speed of light is the maximum possible then there should have been no exchange of information between the parts of the universe and each side should have been uneven with the other side. But this is not so, because the parts of the universe are very uniform, the changes are approximately only one part in a hundred thousand, that is, really uniform. So how do you explain this despite the contradiction to the speed of light?, here the scientists found a solution, space expanded and not matter and space is allowed to expand faster than the speed of light, did you understand that bro??
Well when I read this at first I thought it was a joke but no, and it is written in the scriptures.
My explanation is much simpler. In my opinion the speed of light is proportional to the root of the background temperature of the universe. Therefore, in the first fractions of a second when the background temperature of the universe was enormous, the speed of light was also much higher than it is today. Therefore there was no problem for information to arrive.
By the way, my unacceptable calculations say that even today the speed of light changes and it is smaller by the order of one centimeter per second per year.
Another thing, let's not forget that everything we say is about the visible universe, and the real size of the universe is apparently bigger.
Ami, you raised a very interesting point. I too would be happy to hear an educated answer.
I don't understand something very basic, Sabdarmish - you are called to the flag:
If in the beginning there was a singular point and then there was a big bang and then things started spreading and expanding, that means everything was once much closer. In other words, in order for light from such a great distance to reach us just now, the universe had to expand much faster than the speed of light.
Let's say that Reuben and Shimon are five meters away from each other. Reuben spits on Shimon and at the moment of spitting they both begin to move away from each other at a rate of 30 meters per minute, on the imaginary axis between Reuben and Shimon and the mortar. What must be the minimum speed of Reuven's bat in order for it to hit Shimon? At what distance will Reuven Shimon be when Shimon abducts the Mokhta? Ignore the self-expansion rate of the mortar in space for the purposes of the calculation.
In conclusion,
If we were once 10 light years away from a star that exploded, then after 10 years the light would have reached the point where we were at the time of the explosion and after some time the light would have caught up with the distance we spread from the time we were there to where we are now. If the rate of expansion is greater than the speed of light, then the light will never reach us. If the expansion rate is equal to or less than the speed of light - the light will arrive in a time equal to the time it takes for light to travel the initial distance plus the extra of the expansion. If the last state is the existing state, then up to a certain point in the age of the universe all the events that happened would have received all the information of the light, let's say In a second, in the whole universe. Let's say in a universe with a radius of XNUMX km (a situation that theoretically once existed because the universe grew from a singular point to what it is today) within a thousandth of a second the entire universe received information if any star exploded. At a certain point the universe was too big and the information started taking more and more time to reach distant places More.
Is there any sense in what I'm saying or as usual in astronomy I don't understand some very basic things?
Perhaps one day the second Einstein will come and disprove the law of conservation of mass, the law of conservation of energy by proving that they exist only in certain situations and not always (sorry that today it seems completely illogical), maybe they will discover that matter can be created from nothing in certain situations and this will severely damage science that will have to to adapt himself again (of course then the religious will adapt everything to the new discoveries and say that God did everything).
to dew
Your response includes two sentences.
The first sentence is true.- Science assumes that the known laws of nature, based on observations and experiments, are universal and identical to the laws of nature from the moment of creation. Although, and this must be said outright, the "puzzle" is still far from complete. This is the necessary assumption that underlies scientific activity. Otherwise there is no science but only religion. If each observation stands on its own, without any necessary connection to what was or what will be, then all of nature is nothing but a random collection of phenomena, without any legality that can be formulated, except for the religious formulation: "Everything is done according to God's will".
Regarding the second sentence - maybe it's true or maybe not, I don't know, but where do you get your knowledge and confidence that "far away will be in an instant - far away 13 billion"? Please explain, explain and detail. Thanks.
Tal, what is "creativity"?
The time that is said here is subject to debate and is based on an extrapolative hypothesis only.
The creation was in one moment - and in any case the far away is far - it was between a moment - and 13 billion away.