September 26th, 2012
03:03 PM ET

Baby pictures: NASA photo shows earliest stages of universe

Imagine if you got a glimpse into the earliest stages of your life. Seeing yourself as a baby, throwing tantrums, sleeping, playing and later growing up would be interesting, right?

NASA is experiencing that very sensation after obtaining a photo showing the farthest and thus, earliest reaches of the universe.

The photo is called the eXtreme Deep Field, or XDF, and was created by combining 10 years of NASA Hubble Space Telescope photographs of the same patch of sky at the center of the original Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Though it focuses on a small field of view, it reveals 5,500 galaxies that were previously unseen.

The faintest of those galaxies is one-ten billionth the brightness of what the human eye can see on its own, NASA says.

“The XDF is the deepest image of the sky ever obtained and reveals the faintest and most distant galaxies ever seen,” said Garth Illingworth, principal investigator of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2009 program, in a NASA statement. “XDF allows us to explore further back in time than ever before."

Unlike a human’s lifetime, which would span decades, this photo reveals galaxies from 13.2 billion years ago. Considering the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, these galaxies are, relatively speaking, in their infancy at the time of the photo.

Scientists can tell the time frame of the photo by a galaxy’s color. A bright-blue light shows a young, forming galaxy, while a dark-red light indicates a galaxy that is more mature.

The XDF photo is riddled with blue infant galaxies.

Like many infants, the galaxies are small in size, often brash. They can be seen violently colliding with each other to form bigger galaxies.

While NASA is pleased with the XDF, it hopes the photo will allow scientists to look even further into the past.

Using infrared vision from NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, astronomers will look for more stars and galaxies and, hopefully, the first objects to illuminate the dark universe after the big bang, the space agency said.

As NASA explains it, the XDF is a "time tunnel into the distant past.”

Post by:
Filed under: In Space
soundoff (317 Responses)
  1. Ed

    Why can't you all just admire this discovery without bringing up religion? You all act like your opinions matter. This article never mentions that it is trying to falsify the existence of any "god", nor is it stating that the big bang (even though mentioned at the end), is by accident. Can't you all just admire something for its beauty?

    October 6, 2012 at 3:33 am |
  2. Carbon Copy 1

    That's The Beauty Of Life; LIFE = A NEVER ENDING LEARNING EXPERIENCE TO HARNESS THE POWER OF KNOWLEDGE. KNOWLEDGE IS THE CAPSULE THAT BEAMS YOU TO THE DEPARTURE POINT OF TIME TRAVEL. ARRIVING AT THE FASCINATION OF IMAGINATION AND BIRTH OF NEW INNOVATION.

    October 3, 2012 at 12:42 am |
  3. Piranha

    I'm having a headache.

    September 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
  4. Robert

    If anybody with half a brain would actually READ the Bible, you will notice quite plainly that the creation occurred BEFORE God gave man his reckoning of time. So the time periods of the creation were according to God's reckoning, and not man's. They could have been of any length or duration. The geological record of the earth and the astronomical evidence presented by the Hubble telescope all support this. It wasn't until Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden that they began to reckon their days according to the sun.

    September 28, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • pat

      Thanks for clearing that up. I was begining to think that the entire bible was just an account of the world as imagined by people living 2000 years ago, but now I see that is is a literal descripton of the universe and as such, ANY new scientific discovery MUST agree with this scripture or else the science MUST be flawed and needs to be re-thought so it doesn't conflict with the word.

      September 28, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Jesus Juice

      How did I know that there was gonna be someone spouting religious mumbo jumbo under this article.

      September 30, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • GoodStuff

      @Robert That fact that I have read the Bible then applied logic to the claims and concepts being asserted is truth is exactly what made me determine that the people who wrote the Bible and the people who believe it thousands of years later are complete and total idiots. Go sacrifice a bull or something.

      September 30, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • squashsquash

      The only thing that matters to me is how Adam and Eve first appeared; did they slowly fade in to existance or pop out of a pipe like Super Mario brothers.

      October 1, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
  5. SayAsIs

    To think there are religions that say man was made out of clay and that universe was created some 6000 years back

    September 28, 2012 at 7:28 am |
  6. Phazon

    Day instead of saying in the year 10000000000000000000 God created the heavens is used as an event these creation freaks need to stop because they ruin it for people who may have some form of belief in God day is used as an event like this in the first day God created the heavens and the earth in the second day he created all flying creatures and land creatures according to their kind instead of saying in the year 1 million the. In the 3 million so on you get the point but day is used as event in this situation instead of saying then and then and then and then Bible said earth was round long before plato and any other philosephers cant spell right now oh well read Isiah and what king David said about Gods creations.

    September 28, 2012 at 6:49 am |
    • mandarax

      It's a shame that your god didn't choose a day to create punctuation...

      September 28, 2012 at 8:56 am |
      • fimeilleur

        Bazinga!

        September 28, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • Primewonk

      The word Yom can mean anything from a literal day to an inderminate age. It depends on context and modifiers. In Genesis 1, it use the modifiers ...evening and morning, the x day. Every other time in the bible it uses this modifier, it means a literal day

      But that's irrelevant. Because this version of a god was so scientifically ignorant, he totally screwed up the order of creation.

      Sorry. But it's all nuttery.

      September 28, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • mike

      Mind tend to ramble on much?

      September 28, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Buckquistador

      maybe people would listen to you if you provided correct information. The Bible is less than 2000 years old and some Greeks that are over 2300 years old already thought the Earth was spherical...

      September 28, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
  7. Phazon

    What made mass what made gravity and the natural laws of the universe? God is the only one who wasnt created hence he is the alpha and the omega he had no beginning this is far more easier to accept then we happened by accident which common sense should tell you that everything about the earth is designed in a way to support life how in the world do they scientists think that not on did amino acids find the way here from a meteor but also made oxygen which btw only exists here on earth. That the earth has water for us to drink that their is abundance of food we eat why if we are the center of the earth do they think that we happened to be so lucky that all of these events happened here? All one must do is look at the things happening stop saying to yourselves these things have always happened if you did some research you would find out this is the most suffering time in all of history as a world not as a country but the entire world. Use ure

    September 28, 2012 at 6:27 am |
    • Phazon

      Use your reasoning stop making reasons for what you believe just look around you and say to yourself why am I here and open up the bible and read it with an open heart and find out all the answers to your questions.

      September 28, 2012 at 6:29 am |
      • GoodStuff

        @Phazon "Use your reasoning stop making reasons for what you believe just look around you and say to yourself why am I here and open up the bible and read it with an open heart and find out all the answers to your questions."

        The Bible was written by people who thought the Earth was flat and that the common cold was caused by demons. These people had no clue at all of how the universe worked on any scale. Any child with a 5th grade education would be smarter than anyone that ever lived at the time the Bible was written. With the exception of Mary. Apparently she told the greatest lie ever told people still believe it today.."Mary you are a virgin and I have not copulated with you. Why are you pregnant?" ..."uuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh God burst forth his seed in me". Smartest woman ever.

        September 30, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
      • neil480

        Before telling people to 'open up a bible', why don't you first review each and every one of the thousands of religions created by man and every holy scripture written, look at each one and decide for yourself whether your religion is the right one. I bet you haven't and you've probably been born into a religious family which is why you are religious – childhood brainwashing!

        And I will make you aware that if you had been born in a muslim country you would be on here as a muslim telling people to 'open up the koran' and that the bible is wrong.

        October 8, 2012 at 9:26 am |
    • jason

      fine then just tell me this which god is it. zeus , apollo, shiva. is it the christian god who will punish us in hell for all eternity if we don't believe in a palestenian who walked on water two thousand years ago. is it the god who created earth 5000 years ago and let us ride dinosaurs. before you start making up new gods give us some evidence. maybe thier is an intelligent life force that is a part of this universe but i guarantee you it's no god we know of all of our religions are earth based and there fore cannot describe the magniture of this wonderful universe . people used to think lightning couldn't be generated randomly too and without thought lets wait to we find more evidence of a creator before we conclude that is the only way . there could be many more reasonable explanations , we are still a young species don't shut the door with simple answers to complex questions

      September 28, 2012 at 6:36 am |
      • Phazon

        Read the bible it does not support the teaching of hell none of those false Gods you have said auth a book. Just because false religion makes a mockery of God doesnt mean he does not exist.

        September 28, 2012 at 6:52 am |
      • vulpecula

        @phazon
        The first Bible was a collection of selected stories compiled by the First Council of Nicaea, formed by Roman Emperor Contantine the Great, over 300 years after Jesus died. I say "select", because the council elected from a large number of competing and contradicting stories. And for most of those 300 years, Jesus was only seen as a prophet before being promoted as a savior. If you think that your god actually worded with them to figure out which stories he authored and which he didn't, then you bought the Emperor's agenda hook line and sinker.

        October 7, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • Howie

      Oxygen is plentiful throughout the universe, not just on Earth.

      September 28, 2012 at 9:11 am |
      • James

        I think we have plenty of 'hot air' on Earth as it is.

        September 28, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • fimeilleur

      Water in the most abundant composed molecule in the Universe. It is composed from 2 of the 3 most abundant elements Hydrogen (at #1) and Oxygen (at #2). These two elements naturally attract to one another with very little energy... Oh never mind.

      In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth... (THUMP)

      September 28, 2012 at 9:36 am |
  8. Zippy

    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
    -Albert Einstein

    September 28, 2012 at 12:34 am |
    • mandarax

      "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it" – Albert Einstein, in response to people referring to his use of the term "god" to promote religious agendas.

      September 28, 2012 at 9:04 am |
      • Poltergliest

        "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." -Albert Einstein admonishing athiest for using his quotes out of context.

        October 3, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
  9. wow

    For all of you that swear against God and trust your own understanding so much. You all had better hope that there really isn't a God. I mean dang, you all wont even show a small bit of a respect for a possibility of a God. You really want to take that chance?

    September 28, 2012 at 12:08 am |
    • Shane

      So instead worship him out of fear of punishment because he may be real? If I was God and people were woshipping me for the sole reason to not be punished, then I'd punish them because thats just stupid.

      At least I'd respect the people that were seeking actual answers.

      September 28, 2012 at 2:17 am |
      • Phazon

        True Christians dont love God because because they fear him they fear him because they love him True Christains also know there isnt a hell and true Christian will give their lives for God almighty.

        September 28, 2012 at 6:33 am |
    • Primewonk

      How much respect do you fundiots show Allah? Or Bumba? Amma? Ra? Thor? Or any of the other 10,000 gods we'be invented.

      Why are you ignorant fundiot nutters unable to understand that Pascal's Gambit was refuted long ago?

      September 28, 2012 at 10:21 am |
    • Greezy

      "Just show You-Know-Who some respect will you?!"
      - Ron Weasley

      September 28, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • GoodStuff

      @wow I hope God is real, but it is he that that will have to stand in judgement before me and not the other way around. God has to account for all this suffering, this evil that he created and neglects to fix. In my opinion God is a callous loser. There is a reason Lucifer rebelled against him and that reason is obvious in the world today. If I am to suffer eternal damnation for not blindly following an egotistical sadist who plays games with people live then so be it. Besides if heaven is going to be filled with most of the stupid Christians I know, then ill gladly jump on the bus to hell.

      September 30, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • neil480

      What is it im taking a chance with when I say there is no god? Oh so you're saying I will burn in hell as I don't believe.

      Which god? Choose from thousands, better make sure you pick the right one.
      Which religion? Choose from thousands, better make sure you pick the right one.

      How can YOU be so sure that you have picked the right god?

      I take comfort in that you religious m-o-r-o-n-s don't take kindly to Athiests, and I will shove my atheism right in your face the same as you shove your religion x in mine.

      October 8, 2012 at 9:34 am |
  10. TopCat

    we can see the edge of the universe. anyone see god?

    September 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • Zac

      "we can see the edge of the universe"? Says who? These pictures are simply as far as we can see. It has zero bearing on what lies further.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:48 am |
    • neil480

      Yeah, its a bit like 'where's Wally'

      October 8, 2012 at 9:35 am |
  11. db

    What would you people say if I told you that my pet treefrog created the universe? I caught Wixom while she was sleeping, stuck to a window. I never saw her as an egg or a tadpole so for all we know, she has existed as an omnipotent frog since the beginning of time.

    September 27, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • mandarax

      I challenge Ixion to PROVE that your treefrog didn't create the universe, and unless they can, they must always be open to the idea that the perhaps the universe and all life within it was created by your treefrog. Maybe we should teach that in schools – you know, teach BOTH theories.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
  12. mandarax

    It offers hope that they might pop into existence at any time.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
  13. Ty

    A little to the left.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
  14. robertholt

    "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork." Psalm 19:1.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      @ RobertHolt

      See my remarks to Brian below for historical clarification, and then stop citing works that are meaningless due to the contextual errors involved. Free yourself from the mullahs of ADAD and YoozYerBrain...and thanks in advance for doing that!

      September 27, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
      • Ixion

        The universe is born from nothing into nothing to form something.. I am a scientist in many ways, I know the drill but... Your comments seem to suggest that you know for a fact that their is no God. How is that? Some of the greatest scientist to ever exist never ruled out God entirely.

        It seems that you can not imagine how such a being can be and yet you live in a universe that sprang into being from nothing into nothing to form something. What gives? Sure, Universe dose not imply God had to make it, or that a God even exists, but how can it be that you ponder quantum level effects with all the strange things found there in and find no possibility of God?

        Until you can PROVE that God can not be, I would let others express their wonder at this Universe in what ever way they wish. You might not agree, you might think you know but the only thing that matters is PROOF. There is neither proof for or against God, so it is down to those who believe.

        We are infants trying to understand a universe and we have not even left our own planet.. Seems silly and dismissive for anyone to pretend they know even a fraction of what is here and beyond.

        September 27, 2012 at 9:20 pm |
      • mandarax

        Ixion, the fact that you are suggesting that science deals in proof, and then proceeding to challenge someone to prove a negative, suggests that you actually don't "know the drill."

        September 27, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
      • Petey

        The Christian god cannot be.

        September 28, 2012 at 9:37 am |
    • Primewonk

      Sagan 22:1 For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reàssuring.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
    • archimedes109

      Yeah, and I get to imagine a tiny, massless being who rode a photon to Earth from one of those early, violent, just-forming galaxies. Imagine the glory of this diminutive little guy...he has his tiny, massless saddle and bridle, gripping tightly the reins of the fiery little photon, bucking wildly as it galloped across the vastness of space and time. It arrived only to smash suddenly into a highly-sensitive detector, and be dissippated into electrical energy, leaving nothing more than a few bits of data in a growing database...

      Alas, reality crashes into my dream world. I remember that at c, the tiny little guy made the trip instantaneously...from his frame of reference. He was created and destroyed in the same instant.

      Too bad.

      September 27, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
      • creaty

        How are they destroyed at the same time that they are created?

        September 27, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • Hopeless Despair

      For everyone saying God did that and glory to God, take a look at the most horrible tortures done to the most innocent beings no matter how many prayers are said. God is the Devil. God can create galaxies but he can't bring himself to save the most innocent beings from the most horrible agonies that he himself invented. Jesus is the Savior? Judge him by his fruit to those who are even the most innocent humans and animals as they suffer the most horrible agonies he created despite many prayers and tears and hands lifted begging him and confessing his name and all that which accomplishes no salvation. God can create galaxies but he can not bring himself to save any more than a stone statue can. God is evil. He is made out of not saving. He is made out of cruelty and horror and not giving the help that is needed, even after so many prayers and tears and beggings. God is Evil. He says in the Bible almost everyone goes to infinity in a lake of fire because he wants them to be vessels of wrath whom he will not enable to believe in Jesus. That is the message of the "Savior" a message that contains the opposite of that lying name. Who is God? He would rather have the horrible things happen rather than something better. That is not a savior. That is the devil.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
      • wow

        Wrooooooooong! God gave mankind free will to do whatever he pleases. With that, he gave us all some guidelines on how to use this free will. All he said was "hey if you guys live this way, then good things will happen. If you choose to live the other way, then you can expect bad things to happen." Why do people expect God to come down and stop bad things from happening? It's the choice of mankind to live together or kill each other. It's the same as someone saying dont drink and drive. There are consequenses. You cant be mad at that. People choose not to do the right thing and the effects are far reaching to mankind as a whole.

        September 28, 2012 at 12:03 am |
  15. YoozYerBrain

    I love science!

    Here's what I wonder about the Big Bang; it is observed on the quantum level that particles just pop into (and out of) existence from nowhere that we can discern. They have mass and other quantifiable characteristics where moments before there was empty space. Since that's true and at the moment of the Big Bang the universe WAS such a quantum singularity, isn't it possible that our universe just winked into existence as that quantum singularity out of nothing per the observed nature of the quantum level of physics? Works for me...

    September 27, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • drowlord

      Particles do not just wink into existence, they alter based on mass/energy equivalency.

      September 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
      • YoozYerBrain

        This is the "problem" with quantum physics- the particles DO just wink into and out of existence without mass/energy equivalency or progenation. The phenomenon is observed in a vacuum and is not generated or observed within a field, which is the only way it could be noticed and then tested. The fact that there is no mass/energy displacement or equivalency prior to its winking into existence is what is so fascinating and allows one to say they come from "nowhere", or at least from a "where" that hasn't been found yet-which would be a more accurate description. It is possible that they are popping in and out of these postulated "other" universes that are predicted by the math, DeGrasse-Tyson mentions this in one of his talks, but it hasn't been fully explained yet. Pretty cool, I think. Quantum physics defies the ordinary rules.

        September 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
      • creaty

        No, they do not wink in and out of existence, they are subject to mass/energy equivalency and exchange particles.

        September 27, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • DrDiomedes

      Quantum particles still need fields from which to appear, so they don't really come from "nowhere". Prior to Big Bang, it is not clear that such fields existed (as there was no space-time in which to exist).

      September 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • Ixion

      Read the Holographic Universe. Much of what you ponder fits with what is mentioned in the book.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • JustMe

      Perhaps the winking in and out of particles in quantum physics can be linked to dark energy and matter becomming undark.. and then dark again. Perhaps the big bang was just a large mass of quantum emergence from the dark.

      September 28, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
  16. MR. COCO

    How is it that people that can barely write in their own language have the capacity and knowledge to make such bold statements regarding theology or astronomy?

    September 27, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Creaty

      What language would that be?

      September 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
      • MR. COCO

        The one you are using to portrait yourself as a smart person.

        September 27, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • Creaty

      You clearly are not smart as you cannot distinguish between Astronomy and Cosmology, nor between portray and portrait. Hahahahahahaha.

      September 27, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • Justin

      I have been waiting for someone to comment on that! Thank you Mr. Coco.

      September 27, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
  17. Dana

    Can we stop with the religious nonsense? This is an intelligent scientific article. Take your imaginary friend somewhere else.

    September 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Creaty

      Lots of science fiction being discussed here.

      September 27, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • wow

      LOL intellegent in comparison to what? Why do we humans think we are so smart? What is our intellegence in comparison to the rest of the universe. So laughable!!!

      September 28, 2012 at 12:12 am |
      • neil480

        'What is our intellegence in comparison to the rest of the universe'

        'intellegence'.... well if we go by your IQ and compare it to say... a dead snail, then it isn't looking too good for humanity.....

        'Intelligence' You see what I did there?

        I take it that your bible didn't teach you anything useful like English?

        October 8, 2012 at 9:43 am |
  18. drowlord

    I don't get this.

    For us to be "seeing" the light of something that happened 13.2 billion years ago, there must be a distance of 13.2 billion light years from where they were THEN and where we are NOW. Presuming that all matter originated at a singular point at the big bang at time = 0, this means that they should have been about 480 million light years away from "us" when this light was originally emitted, and that we've been moving away at a relative 96% of the speed of light, ever since then.

    And that means that the relative speed of us flying away from them and likewise them flying away from us is close to twice the speed of light.

    September 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • Creaty

      A light year is measure of distance, not speed.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
      • drowlord

        Agreed... a light-year is a distance. I don't see where I've said otherwise.

        September 27, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
      • drowlord

        Did not write that you stated otherwise but while you understand this you are doing your analysis on the basis of speed of light and travel time. It is a matter of distance as well as time. Key is that both the expanding universe and all galaxies are believed to be isotropic.

        September 27, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Kelly

      Agreed. What is the explanation?

      September 27, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • wasserball

      The speed of light is constant. It does not mean that if you are moving away from the source at the speed of light you will not see it. When will you see it depends on the distance the source is, measure in light years.

      September 27, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
      • drowlord

        That's not my concern so much as a problem with our galaxy and these other galaxies having a relative speed greater than light. i.e. if we're moving away from where it WAS at nearly the speed of light, it also must be moving away from where we WERE at nearly the speed of light.

        For instance, those galaxies should also be observing light from our (parent) galaxies from 13.2 billion years ago. But that's the light from when we were 500 million light years apart, too. That light going in the opposite direction... for a total of 25.9 billion light-years distance in 13.2 billion years.

        It would seem to violate relativity for us to be observably going near the speed of light in one direction and another galaxy to be going near the speed of light in the other direction.

        September 27, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
      • creaty

        Truly a dumb statement.

        September 28, 2012 at 1:10 am |
    • thinkscience

      Space itself is expanding. So, yes, it can expand faster than the speed of light. Because it is expanding, light has more distance to travel between its source and us. The light we see left its source 13.2 billion years ago, and yes, space has expanded since then so it is estimated that the universe is about 80 billion light years big. Objects cannot travel THROUGH space faster than light.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • archimedes109

      space-time expansion is not the same thing as 'traveling through space-time. With Hubble's Law it is easy to calculate the distance-expansion rate of space-time, and at a great enough distance, space-time has a relative velocity in excess of c.

      Also, those galaxies are at a much greater distance from us now than 13.2 billion light years. The light left them 13.2 billion years ago, but during the voyage through space-time to reach us, those photons have crossed an ever-expanding distance. In the time it has taken for those photons to reach us, the distance has grown to more than 42 billion light years. We are able to view extreme distances, in both SPACE and TIME...get it?

      September 27, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
      • creaty

        Good drugs?

        September 27, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
      • CommonSense

        If the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light, the light from that galaxy could never reach us. Scientists think they have answers. What they have is interpretation of data.

        September 28, 2012 at 4:13 am |
  19. not sciestist

    I believe what they are looking at is just a mirage. If light is being bended around black holes, wouldn't that have huge impact on any estimation of time, distance, direction?

    September 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Creaty

      No, it would not, and he word is bent.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
    • CommonSense

      I totally agree. This is the problem with optics. If all the stars were viewed in a straight line, you could look at that picture and create a map of the heavenly bodies. But are we so naive as to think these galaxies are really from the direction the light approaches us? As if no light in the heavens was ever bent by a gravitational field? And doesn't the gravitational bending of light introduce red-shift? (Or blue-shift if the gravitational field is pulling the light toward us?) Since we have excellent examples of gravitational lensing (the most obvious forms of this behavior), you would think some scientists would be wondering if we aren't seeing multiple images of the same stars from different light beams traveling in different directions but bent back toward us by gravitational obstacles in space.

      September 28, 2012 at 4:26 am |
  20. Creaty

    How is this possible if the Universe is only 5000 years old, I am confused.

    September 27, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Dan

      You must have been drinking the church's Kool-Aid.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
      • Creaty

        Why, please enlighten me.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Bazinga

      ...and how come the telescope doesn't fall off the flat edge of the world? I'm going to go pray about this, jesus will come explain. hallelujah, morons!

      September 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
      • Creaty

        Who is a moron?

        September 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • unitcorn

      What method was used to determine the earth was 5000 years old?

      September 27, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • tinker

      If you really want to know and understand some of the facts and laws, I suggest you take some semesters studying at a university instead of coming here to ask silly questions. Or does your tiny mind really expect to get meaningful answers here within a little paragraph? Grow up Einstein! I bet it is time for your nap, right?

      September 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
      • creaty

        A whole semester, my local junior college is on the quarter system, what do you suggest?

        September 27, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • CommonSense

      Creaty=troll

      September 28, 2012 at 4:28 am |
  21. M Peret

    they see light that started travelling 13.2 billion years ago and universe is 13.7 billions old (pretty close one to the other). Would that mean that with a bit more technology they could actually see the big bang one day? Peering a bit deeper and see a big blinding light?

    September 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      We already see this, its the cosmic microwave background radiation. That's what's leftover from the flash of the big bang.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
      • DrDiomedes

        CMB is the surface of last scattering when universe was ~ 300,000 years old. We cannot see light prior to this epoch. But there are predictions of neutrinos prior to this epoch, so in theory, these are observable. Dont think we are going to see the moment of creation, though.

        September 27, 2012 at 6:18 pm |
      • creaty

        Cosmic background radiation supports the Big Bang theory, it does not mean that you are "seeing" it.

        September 28, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • steve

      I dont believe they Can visually see big bang because earth (or what matter it was composed of anyway) was there! They can only see stuff that far back in time because of the distance between us and the event, and thus time it takes the light travel. And thats far away indeed, 13.2 billion light years is an incredible distance even by astronomical standards.

      That is, unless somehow the light from the big bang somehow went in the other direction and then boomeranged back.. dunno but extreme gravity does some wierd stuff. Dont stop hoping, that would be cool!

      September 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
  22. crappygovernment

    and yet we cannot see high res images of the stuff we allegedly used on the Moon?

    September 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Seriously?

      taarrroollll!

      September 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
      • crappygovernment

        Nope, no 3rd party evidence that men walked on the moon,sadly...

        September 27, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
      • MDAT

        We did go to the moon.Saying we didn't is absurd.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
      • crappygovernment

        I love all these pretentious Bolsheviks telling me what to believe without any factual evidence to back it up...

        September 27, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
      • MDAT

        Ok.People saw the Saturn V launch.Also,We can see the foot steps made by the uniforms.Also,the landing craft.If it was faked none of this would happen.The evidence is against you.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
      • Dave

        @crappygovernment: There's a reflector that astronauts left on the moon. Scientists are able to bounce lasers from earth off of it. How exactly do you think that reflector got there?

        September 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
      • crappygovernment

        Russia has reflectors up there as well. They sent them up in UNMANNED missions. One is called Lunokhod, for example. The Mythbusters tried this trick.

        September 27, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
      • MDAT

        It was not unmanned.

        September 27, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Dan

      I guess you missed the recent pictures of the flags and footprints.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • SB

      Conspiracy wingnuts crack me up. This guy actually, truly believes that he's on to some dark mysterious truth about the moon program - something the former Soviet Union, during the height of the cold war and the peak of the space race, could not figure out. Something that China and all the other countries that have sent vehicles of some kind to the moon since then have not figured out. Nope, it's Jimmy Joe-Bob here who gets to the bottom of it all. Because that makes sense, right?

      Seriously, get some help. You are broken in the head and in need of some kind of repair.

      September 28, 2012 at 10:03 am |
      • crappygovernment

        Russia didn't have the ability to track NASA craft until 1973. Apollo ended before then. I love pretentious Science types who can't figure out that NASA is just a welfare program for engineers and defense contractors!

        September 28, 2012 at 10:10 am |
  23. Jon

    "Considering the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, these galaxies are, relatively speaking, in their infancy at the time of the photo." The time of the photo is the last two decades. I think what the CNN reporter is trying to say is the time that the light left those galaxies.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
  24. Jon

    "Like many infants, the galaxies are small in size, often brash. They can be seen violently colliding with each other to form bigger galaxies." Yeah, I've seen lots of babies colliding with each other to form bigger babies.

    September 27, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
  25. Rguy

    Cool, I wonder where those galixies are now............

    September 27, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • drowlord

      Well, you know, they conjoined with other galaxies when they were way too young, spawned baby galaxies that they couldn't nurture very well, lost interest in education, and wound up serving up cold hydrogen in the supernebula of the sleaziest galactic clusters. Baby galaxies are cute and all, but most of them wind up having sad stories.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Nasa

      They are our neighbors.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
  26. alberto

    Bible vs. Science, Where do we draw the line ?? God to me is still God. A superior being with superhuman powers as the Bible accounts. With capabilities as incredible as writing with his finger on stone the basics for the three greatest religions of the world. He could have very well been an Alien from another world who happened to land on Earth during the earliest periods of our history, who made close contact with the hebrews, felt sympathy for them, and made a Covenant to deliver them from bondage thru Moses, his Agent here in our planet. Maybe there`s something of a connection here after all.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • like that

      Holy guacamole. God guided our ancestors to form religions and produce scriptures
      so people with very simple brains wouldn't need to ask the difficult questions.

      The world's three best religions? Are you sure you can go outside all by yourself?

      September 27, 2012 at 9:49 am |
      • NoMeHimOverThere

        Alberto said three of the "greatest" religions, not "best". I believe that he was referring to three of the religions that have the most believers or adherents; namely Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The Hindu faith is also one of the "great" religions, but I don't think it has much (if anything) in common with the other three.

        At any rate, I agree with the OP's sentiment if not their theolgy.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • kle

      Good grief...

      September 27, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • jiri pincas

      God is still god to me – with superhuman powers!! WOW and I thought the one with super human powers was
      Superman or maybe Mighty Mouse. Get over it, there is no god.....

      September 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
      • Franco

        You are wrong.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
      • MDAT

        Franco,put your creationism on the belief blog.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Dan

      You need to get over that religious nonsense.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • DrDiomedes

      dude?

      September 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  27. sylvester

    A quandary: Obviously it's ridiculous to think that the Hubble found the very area, deep in space,
    of the infant universe. And presumably if we point the Hubble in ANY direction and look deep
    enough, we'll find this same type of image. So where is the infant universe? In every direction?

    September 27, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • I'm The Best!

      Yes, in every direction. No matter where you look, you are looking into the past due to the length of time light takes to travel those distances. So no matter which direction you looks, if you look far enough, its the infant universe.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:25 am |
      • Alex

        That is not correct. There is a background radiation constant that can be measured. The only direction you can point and the background radiation not be the same is the direction the universe is expanding from our location. The opposite direction is the direction towards the infant universe and the location of the big bang (center of the universe)

        September 27, 2012 at 10:39 am |
      • BobJackson

        Actually, Best is correct. The universe expands all around, not just in one direction. "Look far enough" is the key, as in looking past the center of the universe, where the big bang would have occurred, to the outer edge beyond (if such an edge exists). Thus, all directions point you to the early universe, but some early areas are simply farther away from Earth than others. Picture yourself sitting inside a sphere. Hold your right arm straight out to your side. Your right hand is closer to the perimeter of the sphere than your chest is, but beyond your hand is still the edge of the sphere. On your opposite side is another edge of the sphere, but it just happens to be farther from your right hand than the first edge was. So... in every direction, far enough, will be the edge. Our solar system is some 4-6 billion years old, which says it formed at least half way through the current universe's existence. We're not way out on the edge of the universe, but somewhere in between the edge and the big bang's ground zero. That picture, alone, is mind boggling. We sure are tiny.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:09 am |
      • I'm The Best!

        there is no 'ground zero' for the big bang. You need to picture the unverse as the surface of a sphere. No where on that sphere is the center or initial expansion point. And from a point on the sphere, due to the distances and speed of light, you look into the sphere towards where it started expanding. So with this picture being 13.2 billion light years away and so 13.2 billion years old, if we look in the other direction 13.2 billing light years, it will look the same. Still 0.5 billion years after the big bang.

        So to summarize, there is no ground zero in our universe, and due to the speed of light and no ground zero, every direction will look the same age as long as its the same distance.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:33 am |
      • BobJackson

        Well, you WERE correct, but not now.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        Please look it up, I am correct. There definitely is no way to tell where the big bang happened, there is no 'ground zero' as you put it. 13.2 billion light years away in any direction is 0.5 billion years after the big bang.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
      • Tycho

        Jon: There is no center of the universe. Your statements suggest that there is a center of the universe where the "Big Bang" occurred assumes that the Big Bang was like an explosion in space; this is not correct. There was no space...the Big Bang created (unfolded) space and time; every point is space is expanding from every other point. Part of the proof of this is that galaxies (that are not part of our local galaxy group) are all measured to be moving away from us in every direction. Also the background microwave radiation created by the Big Bang that was predicted to be present in all space has been measured to be consistent in all directions. Also keep in mind that there was only one small galaxy (1% the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy) in the photo that was measured at 13.2 billion light years away...the vast majority of galaxies in the photo are much younger.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
      • Best knows best

        Correct: all points are ground zero, like every point on the surface of an expanding balloon. Light travels on the surface of that balloon. (Of course, you need to 'picture' the 3-D analog.) What's interesting is: could look so far that we look all the way around the balloon and see our own baby backside? I think not, due to an early hyperexpansion ('inflation').

        September 27, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
      • birdseye

        best is right. there is no ground zero for the big bang. everything there is in the universe including space itself started from a point. think of it as a balloon that expands. it expands in all directions creating more space as it does.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
      • DrDiomedes

        Yep, best is correct (corroboration)

        September 27, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
      • Away from where?

        I'm confused by this discussion. Just because you don't know where the big bang occurred doesn't mean there wasn't a single point – the point calculated to be infinitesimally small – which finally exploded into all the stuff we see today. And 13.2 billion years from where? From what point? From Earth? No, it'd be from where the explosion occurred. Wouldn't that be the so-called ground zero he was talking about?

        September 27, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
    • Jon

      Since our universe is the surface of a hypersphere, the infant universe would be in a direction other than up/down, left/right, or forward/backward. That dimension, for us, is the smallest possible unit of change. So it isn't apparent to us. (Note that the radius of the hypersphere can be increasing at a constant rate and our universe will expand at an increasing rate.)

      September 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
  28. alberto

    All efforts should be concentrated on developing a vehicle, wether manned or robotic, that could reach the speed of light and beyond, to enable us capabilities of penetrating into deep space and time as a tool that will help us find the true origin of the Universe, and our own Galaxy. Combining all research in the fields of Astrophysics, Astronomy,and space sciences, with the real ability of man to penetrate deep into space and time is the only way we will be able to discover the great mysteries ot the Universe and our own origins here on Earth, as well as the discovery of new ways of finding alternatives to our use of energy as we know it today. If all the resources we waste in wars and weapons could be concentrated in research for these purposes, as well as protecting our environment, we would probably be very much ahead already in advancing towards the discovery of our origin, and the Universe itself.

    September 27, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • in the right direction...

      but you can't reach the speed of light, it would take 13.2 billion years (from our perspective) to get to those infants if you could, and 13.2 billion years more to get a message back. More importantly, we are already in the depths of space. Maybe we just need to build a planet-sized LHC.

      September 27, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
      • physics knows best

        NOR would we arrive to find a baby galaxy, even if we could develop a technology that would allow us to go 13.2x light speed and get there in a year, or less... Because the baby galaxy that we see, that is just an imagine of it from 13.2 billion years ago, I'd say those galaxies are no longer babies.

        As for going the speed of light, while technically impossible for an object with mass to reach the speed of light, due to the energy requirement reaching infinity (won't go into all of the other gory detaisl that would happen to a person traveling that fast either!), there are potentially other ways to achieve lightspeed or faster, such as bending space-time, so that from the position of an impartial observer, you would be traveling at c or higher, yet those on the craft would be traveling much slower in their frame of reference.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • DrDiomedes

      ummm ... no

      September 27, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
  29. maya

    I not sure the baby galaxies are blue because they are still young? Doesn't it have something to do with Doppler blueshift ? Then again, it could be that thermal expansion is pretty slow in these new galaxies!

    September 27, 2012 at 7:37 am |
    • Jim

      It could also be that because of the particula composition of the gas in and around the galaxy, they radiate more at the blue end of the spectrum.

      September 27, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • Randy

      The blueish nature of their appearance is most likely due to the high intensity of the fuson process that is more common in younger gigantic stars such as blue super giants. These are typical of a young star grouping or cluster and like so many youth, they live fast and die in spectacular fashion. With respect to the dopper shift, for an object moving away from you, as in an expanding universe, it would be shifted toward the red end of spectrum, blue if moving toward you. These galaxies were probably even more blue than the image would show if you take the expansion effect out of the picture. Disclaimer: Astronomy is a hobby, not and area of personal expertise, so don't bet the farm on my comments. :-)

      September 27, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • DrDiomedes

      star formation

      September 27, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
  30. Mortran

    There are already fully developed spiral galaxies out there. This means that the universe has only insignificantly changed in 13.2 billion years. May be they should revise the supposed age of the universe of 13.7 billion years, or better revise the whole idea that the universe had a beginning at all.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:42 am |
    • V

      That is science not religion ... revisions are possible in science.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:02 am |
      • maya

        True story! At least scientists have the decency to correct themselves when they realize they were wrong!

        September 27, 2012 at 7:20 am |
      • Herr General

        And that's what makes science so different- scientists are willing to throw something out if it doesn't work and they find something that fits the data better. Johannes Kepler-the guy behind the three laws of planetary motion-spent four years trying to make a model using proportions of squares and circles and triangles. He was smart enough to move on and find something better. Did we keep Pluto as a planet because of semantics? No, we classified it as a dwarf planet because that's where it fits best. What was the major obstacle to accepting the heliocentric model of the solar system? I'm sure you all know- the Catholic Church. Even though the heliocentric model fit the data far, FAR better than the outdated geocentric model, the Church prosecuted anyone who supported it because it didn't fit their "ideals". Such is the story throughout history- science trumps semantics.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Spark

      Umm...not every galaxy in that picture is the same age. The large majority of what is in the picture is a lot younger....the story doesn't really describe that. Here's a pictorial explanation:

      http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/37/image/d/format/web_print/

      September 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
  31. Arthur Uzo

    The God of heaven and earth created all things. I believe it with all my heart. The bible don't lie. What we don't know is do to our human nature. All science is telling us are speculations. God alone knows all. Praise be to Him.

    September 27, 2012 at 6:08 am |
    • Mortran

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster created all things. I believe it with all my heart. Noodles don't lie. All science is telling us are speculations. The Spaghetti Monster alone knows all. Praise be to It.
      Ramen.

      September 27, 2012 at 6:52 am |
      • Franco

        You are an idiot.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
      • amen

        The Flying Franco knows all things. He doesn't lie.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • V

      Yeah you are correct in speculating that Bible was writen by god.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:00 am |
      • Franco

        The Bible was written by man inspired by God.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • maya

      Yes, the Bible is the ultimate truth. I also believe everything on Youtube! lol

      September 27, 2012 at 7:22 am |
    • Jim

      Well, Arthur, how do you explain the fact that the bible that "don't lie" tells us there is a firmament (a firm, solid structure) above the earth onto which the stars are affixed and the rain falls. When the HST was launched, no such firmament was found. In fact in the hundreds of rockets sent out of the atmosphere, none found the firmament described in the bible that "don't lie". Yet, the fact this firmament was not found proves beyond doubt that the bible is wrong. Then there is the fact that these picture prove that there is no firmament, again proving the bible is wrong.

      Come on! Tells us. You are a Poe and are trying to trick us. You aren't really that ignorant, are you?

      September 27, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • snowboarder

      apparently arthur still resides in the age of ignorance.

      September 27, 2012 at 8:43 am |
      • Franco

        and you are living in the age of arrogance.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
      • MDAT

        Franco you are lying.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Terry

      hahahahaha, religious people always feel threatened when they see an article about space. They have to ALWAYS let us know that what we are seeing is Bible or Quran related as if their fairy tale produced all of this. lulz

      September 27, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • letsgomets2012

      The Bible was written by men.

      And it is FOR men and by men.

      The Bible was written by human beings. It is not divinely imspired.

      In case you ain't heard, it is also theorized that the Bible has been edited.... again, by men.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:31 am |
      • Dan

        They edit the bible all the time to make it more believable. It's not working.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • Pliny

      Why do the god people feel the need to comment on science articles?

      September 27, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
      • Franco

        for the same reason Atheists comment on religious articles.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
      • Eureka

        How about if Iran and the Bible Belt get together and form the own country, GodWannaLand? The rest of us will build a border wall and fly some drones. Then we'll stir up internecine conflicts within GodWannaLand so they don't fly their carts and donkeys into our skyscrapers.

        September 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
      • MDAT

        Because they hate all this.This is our grounds to discuss science.god plays no part here.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
      • Dan

        Eureka, I like that idea.

        September 27, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • xirume

      Arthur... you're kidding, right?

      September 27, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • Dan

      You can "believe" in god all you want but you are not very smart. You are very weak-minded and want to believe it for some reason. What makes you believe everything written in a man-made book? I have never seen such nonsense as the bible.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
      • CommonSense

        I find it hard to believe you have ever studied the scriptures. Scientific thinkers appear to dismiss the Bible without actually studying it. Such arrogance. I guess that's where the hate towards Christians must come from: if the Bible is true, you are on the wrong side of God. So it is normal for you to feel a little twinge of anger every time some moron quotes scripture. You point at the moron and laugh, but you are the fools. In this particular case, Franco is anything but a moron. If you understood the Bible, you would understand what he's saying. But you don't and neither do most of the people reading my post. No matter. I've made my choice. You make yours.

        September 28, 2012 at 4:54 am |
  32. Superman

    Where is my home, Krypton?

    September 27, 2012 at 5:32 am |
    • KJ

      Located in the tiny red galaxy in the upper right corner of this photo... safe travels home! Give us a call back here on Earth when you arrive to Krypton. :o)

      September 27, 2012 at 6:50 am |
  33. Hollywood

    Who knew that we could actually look at the beginning of time. Too bad Einstein wasnt around to see this.

    September 27, 2012 at 3:43 am |
    • Annunaki

      When the Annunaki descend sooner or later, we'll get Einstein breathing again my Argonian.

      September 27, 2012 at 5:21 am |
  34. Ziad Al-Masri

    The Image reminds me of the Koran / Quranic Verse. In Surrah "The Inevitable" 56.
    Verse 75. I swear by the locations of the stars. 76. It is an oath, if you only knew, that is tremendous. 77. It is a noble Quran. 78. In a well-protected Book.

    September 27, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • maya

      I believe everything on the Holy Quran, not to mention Youtube!

      September 27, 2012 at 7:25 am |
  35. sugar

    Unless I am missing changes or additions this looks like the exact same photo as the one on the poster in my classroom. I had my students write a story about being a life form on a planet in one of these other galaxies. That was about seven years ago.

    It's still one of my favorites but it's no cats eye nebula.

    September 26, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • JiveTalkin'

      I was thinking the exact same thing. I had this image posted as a background on my Myspace page about six years ago. My Myspace page, for Spaghetti Monster's sake!! But why would NASA recycle an image and play it off like they just discovered it? Could it be job security? The answer to that question would be a true discovery.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:36 am |
      • jkflipflop

        This image is a massive mosaic of all the images Hubble has ever taken. The "zoomed out" shot you are referring to is probably the best low-mag image we have.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Herr General

      That's because it's a picture of the exact same area of space, just with higher-resolution pictures. However, looking at any other area of sky in this detail would reveal a very similar picture- the universe is relatively uniform throughout.

      September 27, 2012 at 11:46 am |
  36. Michael de Jong

    If these are extreme far away galaxy's, they should be extreme redshifted. So why are they blue? Does the redshift not weigh up to the blue color of young stars? Or does the ultraviolet radiation becomes visible as blue light?

    September 26, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • sharoom

      I believe the photo was simply color coded to highlight relative young and old galaxies.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
    • maya

      Doppler blueshift is caused by a Galaxy coming towards our Milky way. These baby Galaxies could be coming our way, which results in a decrease in wavelength, thus a blueshift. Redshift is caused by the exact opposite scenario.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:28 am |
    • Jarno

      It's not a difficult task to shift the color spectrum of the image back, by the amount of redshift in the image received, to get a "natural color" final product, which looks like it would look without the redshift.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • simple simon

      No, the picture isn't colorized. That's the point. Redshift doesn't signify how far away an object is, but at what speed it's moving away. In the early universe, objects aren't moving apart as quickly.

      September 27, 2012 at 9:32 am |
  37. CelticStarHunter7

    'and the time it takes to travel across a single galaxy (millions of years at the speed of light).' The Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So it would take approximately the same 100,000 years to transverse it at the speed of light.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • maya

      where does it say that? I can't find it.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:32 am |
  38. rudix

    did you know that it is impossible to see more than 180,000 miles into space ...in real time..as we can not see more than a second....anything that we see is a reflaction of the past....all about it at The Dimension Machine...the new book about time andspace...at B&N and amazzon

    September 26, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • Dan

      You can't see the end of your nose in real time if you want to get technical.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
  39. Just Wondering

    If we are traveling at the speed of light away from some light source then how does that light ever catch up to us?

    September 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • Keep Looking Up

      It doesn't. Over time the most distant galaxies are fading from view, never to be seen again. Unless we invent warp drive or find some wormholes or something. What exists is expanding, but what we are observing is the incredible shrinking universe. :D

      September 26, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • ErikC

      This is the mystery that Einstein unraveled. Light moves through a vacuum at a constant speed relative to ALL points of observation, which implies that time moves at difference rates for observers moving at different speeds. Mass and distance are also relative.
      These effects are not obvious to us, because we don't move anywhere near the speed of light.

      September 27, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Eric

      How can we be traveling at the speed of light? We're matter, that would take infinite energy.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
  40. brian

    When people believe in Jesus and God and the Bible and also believe with all their hear and with serious conviction that there is no other life in the universe, I don't understand what is in their heads. Then again most of these people say the earth is a few thousand years old, yet they aced every class in college or highschool.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • infidelio666

      Good comment Brian!

      Yes, you can believe these things and "ace" all you courses but you would have to attend a "special university" like Bob Jones University. The next question: Is BJU accredited to teach biology and physics? No Way.

      Their webpage advertises "Build Faith" but it is more like "Blind Faith".

      September 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
      • CommonSense

        This is the crux of the problem. Scientific thinkers like to see Christians as having blind faith. To be fair, many who call themselves Christians spew the "Let go, let God" nonsense. But since you brought up "blind faith", let's take a look at a definition of real faith:

        "the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth".

        If you've ever seen a trial, you know the account of an eye-witness is entered as evidence. You have to take that evidence on faith or dismiss it. If the witness was a criminal, maybe he is lying. Even if the witness is a cop, he could still be lying. Suppose you have four witnesses though, from different backgrounds, some of which don't even know each other, and they pretty much agree on what took place. Do you find enough "faith" to consider this testimony as evidence? The truth is, since you weren't at the scene, you can never know for sure what took place. You can only consider the eye-witness testimonies and related evidence presented.

        The Bible presents witnesses (in two testaments) from two different parts of history (The Old Testament from before the birth of Christ and the New Testament from after the birth of Christ). Each is filled with the accounts of eye witnesses. Since you weren't there your only choice is to consider the testimony of the eye witness accounts and believe or dismiss. Obviously believers consider these accounts and related evidence to be true, but let's be clear: real believers are not lazy thinkers, nor dreamers, nor imbeciles. Real believers have looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. That is faith, not blind faith.

        September 28, 2012 at 5:34 am |
    • Dan

      It's always amazing when some otherwise-intelligent people believe in that nonsense. It's usually the illiterate deep south.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
  41. Nitin

    Just 500 million years for a mature galaxy. I don't think so. Something is wrong with this picture.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • Keep Looking Up

      The conditions of the universe have changed over time, it used to be much hotter and denser. You can compare the process to the rates of star formation at the center of a galaxy and near the rim.

      September 26, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
    • jim777

      It's a question of depth perception. the tiniiest little dots are the ones 13 billion light years away, not hte larger (closer, obviously) formed sprial galaxies. All of these galaxies aren't uniformly next to each other and the same exact distance away. the fully formed galaxies are closer, and therefore older than 500Million years

      September 27, 2012 at 10:09 am |
  42. pw1121

    Yeah....we are alone in the universe where the Earth is the center of it. And Jesus had short hair and wore a suite and tie and could be found at IHOP every Sunday after church eating blueberry pancakes with all the other apostles.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
  43. Hank

    load of frog smock from the lieberals

    September 26, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • snowboarder

      lol.

      September 26, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
  44. D Rock

    The universe is a farce.

    September 26, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  45. Ghandi

    So if we keep looking farther and further into the past shouldnt we hit a wall ? and what's even more puzzling is that the future holds NOTHING

    September 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • snowboarder

      why would you suggest that the future holds nothing?

      September 26, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
      • Ghandi

        If the Universe is truly infinite and in constant expansion it will become nothing

        September 26, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Mitt_and_Obama_SUCK

      You would see nothing, because the light is not able to reach us... however, that doesn't mean there is nothing beyond that point - it's just that we can't see it.

      September 26, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • snowboarder

      "If the Universe is truly infinite and in constant expansion it will become nothing"

      i'm not sure how you come up with that notion.

      September 26, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
      • Peter

        I believe snowboarder is referring to the well studied concept of entropy

        September 27, 2012 at 6:50 am |
  46. David byrne

    Would someone please explain "flat universe"? If, according to particle physics, everything can be infinitesimally small, how can the universe be "flat"?

    September 26, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Keep Looking Up

      Dr. Lawrence Krauss explains:

      September 26, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
      • Robert

        Thanks for that link. I learned quite a lot and finaly found an answer to why we can't see past a certain time frame of the early universe.

        September 27, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  47. cpc65

    So blue equals barley legal and red equals MILF? Got it!

    September 26, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
  48. snowboarder

    it is absolutely unfathomable the immensity of the universe. it truly puts our tiny human spec in perspective.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • maya

      For some reason I find the first sentence very geeky. I like geeky.

      September 27, 2012 at 7:38 am |
  49. PhysicsPhD

    Red galaxies are older? I haven't seen the report on the image yet, so they could have indeed altered the pic based on light spectrum (that tells them what chemicals are in each galaxy, and that can tell them the age). But, usually in these images, red galaxies (especially young ones) are very rapidly moving away. The light is still hydrogen (blue light), but is shifted red because the earth and the light source are moving apart at a noticeable fraction of the speed of light. The phenomenon is called 'Red Shift' and is considered evidence of the continued expansion of the universe itself.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • fmch6444

      Not quite. The red galaxies are further away, and thus have "red shifted", they are far older than the bluer ones.

      September 26, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
      • fmch6444

        Whoops, just reread what you wrote. I haven't seen anything where NASA says its a false color image. So, red is very far way in this picture.

        September 26, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Arthur

      You gave a Great explanation of the doppler effect

      September 26, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • super

      I doubt this is a color photo, just different types of waves color coded like a lot of space photos

      September 26, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Keep Looking Up

      The older galaxies are red-shifted to a greater degree due to the expansion of the universe stretching the wavelength of light. The younger they are the more this effect is due to our relative velocities, since they haven't existed long enough for expansion to stretch the light as much. Two equal observed wavelengths could represent a wide range, so to determine their age we also have to understand their life cycles. A galaxy could actually be moving toward us in space while appearing red-shifted because it is simultaneously "moving" away from us due to expansion. Pretty wild stuff!

      September 26, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
  50. mikem

    Even if it's proven true that the universe began with a big bang 13.7 billion years ago, there was still something here before there was a big bang.

    Even if it's proven true that God created the heavens and the earth, the Bible never answers this question: Who created God?

    Even if all of science is true and all of religion is true, the big bang was not the original beginning and God was not the original creator.

    We will never know what was here before the big bang.

    We will never know who created God.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • db

      If something or someone created God, who created God's creator? Ultimately, there is no answer.

      September 26, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
      • yeah

        That is the point the likelyhood of a god just being there, is the same as a big bang just happenning out of no where and creating something out of nothing. it's mind boggling. We will probably never know what actually happened, how the universe came to be.

        September 26, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
      • MDAT

        We already have much to support the big bang.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • M. Nelson

      According to Obama the government.

      September 26, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Jonathan

      If space and time are interconnected, and God created it, he must exist outside of the concept of time. Thus, outside of the concept of causality pervasive throughout our universe.

      September 26, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • snowboarder

      all of science and all of religion can not be true.

      September 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
      • jkflipflop

        Space magic.

        September 27, 2012 at 11:55 am |
    • ithink

      It's a circle. Before big bang, there was a big shrink. There are multiple universes and they are inter-connected, The dark matter flows between them. God controls the amount of dark matter in each universe to decide which one to expand or collapse.

      September 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • brian

      God tells us himself he simply "has always been" its just extremely difficult for us to fathom since nothing else "has always been"

      September 26, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • super

      before and after is a concept of time, time only exists where there is energy, before the big bang there was no time so there is no such thing as "before the big bang"

      September 26, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • Frodis

      It's turtles..all the way down!

      September 27, 2012 at 9:55 am |
      • I know, right?

        I was going to say the same thing.

        September 27, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Dan

      That's an easy one. Man created god(s).

      September 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Eric

      1) "Even if it's proven true that the universe began with a big bang 13.7 billion years ago, there was still something here before there was a big bang."

      The observable evidence shows that the universe started 13.7 billion years ago with the "Big Bang." If that is the beginning of space and time then it's possible there was nothing before that. Just because people have a hard time accepting that concept, that doesn't mean it's not true.

      2) We will never know what was here before the big bang.

      Why not? Cosmologists are working on this stuff. Who knows what we discover as we increase our knowledge of the natural world. We may discover there was something before, or discover a way of demonstrating there can't be something before.

      3) We will never know who created God.

      Well if one exists, perhaps he can answer that. I mean, I know who created me, my mom and dad did.

      September 27, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
  51. Brian

    So, if we put men on the moon in the '60s and had the Shuttle in the '80s; why don't we have a space port that can handle a Star Trek like space vehicle in 2012? I think our government has been sitting on their hands for far too long with regard to space development.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
  52. J Vance

    I absoutely love this stuff, although I can't really understand it. I always get cognitive vertigo when I think about it.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
  53. Socal Reaggae

    http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-848989

    September 26, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
  54. Drew

    When was this picture taken? I have the exact same picture on my Hubble Space Telescope calendar for September. I have a feeling someone at CNN has the same calendar and is just rehashing old news. Yes is a great photo but it's nothing new.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
  55. Michael Marley

    "showing the farthest – and thus, earliest – reaches of the universe." The time it takes light to travel, calculated by einstein, is used to see objects that are billions of years old. This is true, if indeed light waves flowed at a constant and in a straight line. I want to suggest that perhaps what we see, is actually behind us.

    September 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • snowboarder

      based on what?

      September 26, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • cwestions

      Excellent point. We now know that there are gravitational forces in the universe which pull so hard they can bend or even consume light itself. Why wouldn't this affect what we are able to see? I have a feeling that the Big Bang theory, based on the idea that everything is moving away from everything, is nothing more than a slight of hand the universe is playing on us with bent light. I would doubt if the universe is, indeed, eternal.

      September 26, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
      • cwestions

        *wouldn't (sorry)

        September 26, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
  56. KevinArnoldWonder

    Why do I see tiny red galaxies mixed in with tiny blue galaxies? If the red ones are mature and the blue ones are babies..? Aren't we looking back 13.2 billion years when it was determined the universe is 13.7 billion years old? What is the time difference between a red and a blue? Shouldn't they be all blue? Why are the compact galaxies so evenly dispersed, aren't there any large clouds of particles that have yet to form? I demand answers!

    September 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Prince Lotor

      I think the likely answer is that they are galaxies in the foreground, i.e., they are a lot closer to us but in the way. Rather unthoughtful of them, if you ask me.

      September 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • cwestions

      It would seem that the Hubble Deep Space photos are not singular pictures, but really overexposed pictures overlain again and again. The galaxies which are nearer to us should appear sooner, and thus have more vibrant orangish and red colors than those young, more distant blue galaxies. Indeed, it does appear that the specks in the distance are indeed more blue, but perhaps that's nothing more than a light wavelength effect. I think that this image proves more than ever that the Big Bang theory is nonsense. You don't see anything shrinking into a single point of origin. Perhaps the universe itself is eternal, a concept people simply can't comprehend...

      September 26, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  57. Vasil Henry

    Our ability to reason and create art is the foundation of all our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Science, mathematics and literature provide the tools that guide critical thinking about self others and the world we live in. Present day way(s) of educating children need to focus on allowing children to use life experiences to develop their minds, to provide them with information,to develop good mental habits and yes' to teach them how to think (critically). Standardized tests stand in the way of meaningful learning. The industrial revolution has taught how labor but the technological era in which we live has far more exciting things to discover about the world.

    September 26, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
  58. Magic Jew

    Humans are so small, yet most think they're so big.

    September 26, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
  59. 19_19

    GOD created all major galaxies based on 19 coded, Symmetrical a most superb Mathematical Plan;
    here are the Solid Proofs:

    http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
    UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES

    September 26, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • lathebiosas

      Where is the solid proof there is a god?

      September 26, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
      • brian

        where is there not?

        September 26, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • Major Tom

      There is no proof of a god whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

      September 26, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
      • brian

        so u believe u are not worth more than animals?

        September 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
      • Timmy

        I am probably worth less than some animals, but worth more than others.

        September 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • brian

      where is that in the bible lol ppl kill me

      September 26, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • Dan

      LOL

      September 27, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
  60. midogs2

    Does Hubbard and NASA know where, in the universe, the 'Big Bang' happened? Have they zeroed in on the general direction of the precise spot?

    September 26, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • ME II

      It happened right here, everywhere.

      September 26, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • lathebiosas

      Good question. Theoretically you can measure how fast and in which direction the galaxys are expanding apart, so by reversing it you should be able to point out the origin point. Often wondered this question myself.

      September 26, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
      • Vad

        So in theory, the Big Bang is still happening? Kind of like when Praxus exploded in Star Trek 6? The shock wave just keeps expanding? The question I have always wondered is, what is the Universe expanding into? For those going to reply, "nothing" is not a valid answer.

        September 26, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
      • DarrenB

        Space itself is expanding everywhere so its not like an explosion expanding into empty space or "nothing"

        September 26, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • CNNblow

      The big bang didn't happen at a single point. There was no space then, so there could be no single point.

      September 26, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
      • lathebiosas

        Where did it happen in relation to the space that exists now? Can the question be framed that way? If all of current space could be pictured as a transparent sphere, could you calculate and show within that sphere a point of light where it all started? I want to go to there.

        September 26, 2012 at 6:02 pm |
      • CNNblow

        No, you couldn't. There is no single spot that is the "center" of the universe.

        September 26, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
      • CNNblow

        As Phil Plait likes to say, the big bang was not an explosion IN space. It was an explosion OF space.

        September 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Mark

      The real point is that the origin point on longer exists! Astronomers usually describe space-time (the components of which cannot be separated from each other) as an expanding balloon. The present, this moment right now, is the actual skin of the balloon, the interior of the balloon is the past, and the exterior is the as yet unobservable future. When we look out into the universe (or even toward more distant places here on earth), we are seeing them as the used to be, but the light has taken longer to reach us the farther away on the balloon's surface the object is located. Every place in the universe at THIS moment is essentially the same age AND the same distance from the center, which is the moment of the Big Bang. Further, the view from each present location in space-time can ONLY be into the past, AND we see a smaller and smaller slice of it the further back we look. This is known as our "light cone". This happens because, in the past, space time was smaller, though it continues to expand as the present space-time swells out into the future. So the farther away in space time a given object is from our position the longer it takes for the light it is emitting to reach us, and, therefore, the most distant objects we can see, even with the Hubble, represent only a small slice of the entire space-time system. This is also true for any other "present" view point on the universe-balloon. BTW, we will never be able to see the Big Bang itself, as there was no visible light produced during the early stages of space-time - the universe itself has evolved and changed greatly since the Big Bang, all while it continues to expand. More thorough (and probably clearer) explanations can be found in Stephen Hawking's books and in Timothy Ferris's beautiful book, "Galaxies".

      September 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
      • alberto

        great explanation of the space-time continuum that applies to the Universe. provided we could travel in a space vehicle at more than the speed of light, i believe we could travel into the space-time continuum and reach the outer limits of our own Galaxy to find more answers to our origins and those of the Universe as well, but that is easier sais than done, isn `t it ?'

        September 27, 2012 at 9:19 am |
  61. Lynn

    I'd prefer to believe that the universe is circular and comes back to the same point..that way if I get lost out there, if I keep going forward, I'll eventually get home! :)

    September 26, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • cwestions

      You know, I wouldn't doubt it. Think about all of the micro- and macrocosms of existence which we know. Atoms have nuclei around which electrons and neutrons circle. Planets have moons, suns have planets, and galaxies have solar systems. Even on a galactic scale, there are larger galaxies and the smaller ones which orbit them. It seems our whole of existence relies on orbital shapes and disc-like cyclical processes. Who's to say that our universe doesn't also have either an orbital shape or cycle of some kind?

      September 26, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
      • cwestions

        Of course, considering the size of our universe and the time it takes to travel across a single galaxy (millions of years at the speed of light), much less the entire distance of space, no one's coming full-circle lest they be eternal.

        September 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
      • CelticStarHunter7

        The Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So it would take approximately the same 100,000 years to transverse it at the speed of light.

        September 26, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • Keep Looking Up

      If the universe is flat, then the Earth is really flat, and maybe those "crazy" religious people aren't so crazy after all. ;)

      September 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Yes

      Yes Lynn, you would not die of old age or anything because it is only a mile or so wide, you just walk over there and then you go back home in a circle, Lynn. Yes.

      September 27, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
  62. Vad

    How did they determine the age of the Universe as 13.7 billion years? If Hubble could see back 13.2, then can we get another more powerful telescope than can see the rest of the way back? Come on man, it's only 500 million more years!

    September 26, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • keeroc15

      Assume that these galaxies are 13 billion light years away. Then look in the opposite direction in the universe and you will also see galaxies 13 billion years away which would mean that the two sets of galaxies are 26 billion light years apart – seems like the logic comes unglued or perhaps we are at the center of the universe.

      September 26, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
      • lathebiosas

        But if you look the other way maybe they are only 12 billion years away. That puts us just right of center. If you look the other way and the galaxys are only 1 billion years away you are Paul Ryan.

        September 26, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
      • cwestions

        Why are we so stuck on the idea of 13.7 light years away. It would seem to me that carbon dating has its limits within our known solar system.

        September 26, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • ME II

      The expansion of space makes everything move away from everything else, which becomes more apparent at larger distances.

      September 26, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Keep Looking Up

      See: Reionization

      September 26, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  63. Brian in Texas

    These scientific findings are so incredible. It makes me wonder if there are really those green little monsters out there somewhere. Absolutely amazing. I am hoping that a different sign of life is found on Mars.

    September 26, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • lathebiosas

      Is it the strong anthropic principle that suggest there has to be other life? There are something like 30 billions stars in the milky way galaxy, and an estimated 30 billion galaxies. The numbers are so staggering how can there not be? Unfortunately the time/distance is so great I suppose we are essentially alone.....

      September 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
      • cwestions

        It's sad that even if we do develop the technology to travel at the speed of light, visiting other stars which have worlds orbiting them that could support life is a one-way ticket at best (and that's considering we even find something).

        September 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Dan

      The odds of life being out there is EXTREMELY high.

      September 27, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
      • MOON MORMON

        OH YES! The Mormons believe people live on the moon and the sun! They say God told them so! And they believe in a planet called KOLOB shown as a cow on an Egyptian funeral text. And they think all kinds of maddeningly insane and totally disproven things, but let's put someone in the white house who is so out of reality that he can't figure out Mormonism is invented by a liar and also believes it over the Bible. And he will get to have his own planet out there full of wives to get in bed with after he becomes a god too!

        September 27, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
  64. M. Nelson

    Remember, God did not build the universe by himself. He had help.

    September 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • MDAT

      Don't post god here.

      September 26, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • lroy

      I don't know about "help" but perhaps the angels put their two cents worth in, as it were. I know I sure would've.!

      September 26, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
      • brian

        Jehovah God Almighty with Jesus (Chief Angel/ First of all creation) created all things. read colossians 1:13-20

        September 26, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
      • YoozYerBrain

        @brian ....Jehovah God Almighty with Jesus (Chief Angel/ First of all creation) created all things. read colossians 1:13-20

        Oh boy, thanks! Didja know that Jehovah is the semitic name of ADAD the Sumerian God of Thunder, of whom Abraham was a 4th generation priest? Didja know that abraham had to leave Sumer along with a bunch of other Adadians because politically the new king Ur-Nammu wanted the alliance of the Nammu priesthood? Didja know that abraham and the subsequent priests of ADAD codified his-ADAD's- inferiority complex in the so-called first commandment where they explicitly if not implicitly acknowledge that ADAD/yahweh is NOT the only god, just the most jealous. Didja know that the chief god of the Sumerians would be AN and that ENLIL was the boss on Earth, making ADAD maybe the 3rd guy in that pantheon at best, and that it's the PRIESTS of these ideas/gods that wield political and economic power in ancient societies and therefore are subject to the very human whims of changing fashions. And what to you do when you fall out of favor? You fight back to keep your gold, man, and that's what abe and the rest did. This is all historically true. You quote a passage about a polytheistic pantheon that you yourself don't even understand. And by the way there is historically, archaeologically, and in all other ways absolutely no proof this jesus guy existed, not even in the contemporary writings of the jewish temple, the authors of contemporary spiritual books, scribes, bankers, rabbis, Romans, NOTHING, so stop it already.

        Instead of blindly following the traditions handed to you by the mullahs of ADAD, now that I've explained the fallacies to you, you can YoozYerBrain and make life better for people.

        Now, as to why the Vulcans and little green men haven't shown up I have one compound word for you- smallpox. Or how about 4 words from a different reference- War of the Worlds. See, it doesn't matter where we go or who comes here, we CANNOT interact due to the radically different microbes that would be present and lethal to each species. So inter-species connectivity with extra-terrestrial life IS NOT POSSIBLE, which is why we never hear from Spock, Sarek, Ti Pol and the rest...it would kill them to breathe our air even if they used a comparable atmospheric chemistry. Sorry.

        September 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
      • Phazon

        Yoozer did you also know that those beliefs are untrue see people like you will believe in anything written by men as long as it diss credits God your sayings are very very untrue and time and time again there has been people like you first Jehovahs name means he causes to become. The whole bible circulates around his name the original torah and septuagent has his name in there more than 6000 times just remember what revelations say they will have to know that I am Jehovah.

        September 28, 2012 at 6:19 am |
  65. Prefection

    Far out, man.

    September 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • cwestions

      apt comment!

      September 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
  66. unit6

    What is that smidge left of center? Oh wait.........

    September 26, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  67. Naveed

    So then, still think we are the only ones in this universe??

    September 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • lroy

      Look, when little green men, or someone who looks like a Vulcan has the curtsey of knocking on MY front door for a visit, then I will believe it. If they can come here, then surely we can go there (assuming little things like can we survive the trip, is the planet habitable to earthlings, etc.).

      September 26, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • Keep Looking Up

      If each of the 7 billion people on Earth searched for life at the rate of one star per second, it would still take us over 4.5 million years to explore them all. The odds against us being alone out here are, well, astronomical...

      September 26, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
  68. JonathanL

    I think they are mistaken on the 13.7. It is hard to believe that so many galaxies, even full spiral galaxies could form in 500 million years over such a broad and deep space, this probably from an area of the sky about the size of a pin at arms length. The Milky Way only rotates twice in that timespan and doesn't change much in that time period. And if you look at any spot in space you will see nearly uncountable numbers of galaxies. This all happened in .5 billion years and filled space that is larger than .5 billion light years? I mean how many millions of light years does this photo encompass? I am thinking there has to be something wrong with our notion of how to measure distance in space, that the further we look, the more we will find. I think if we focused for 50 years on an even smaller area we could see similar things passed there and 20 and 30 billion years older. Then we will have to say the universe is 20.4 to 30.5 billion years old. Come on! Stop pretending there is an edge to the universe. Einstein made mistakes. Maybe we made some. We might wind up believing in a steady state universe agsin if this keeps up, and be forced to find an alternative explanation to the red shift than the so called 'doppler effect'.

    September 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
    • DarrenB

      The current understanding is that we are in an "infinite" and "flat" universe with no edges as opposed to a curved space in the form of sphere that circles back on itself

      September 26, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
      • cwestions

        Sounds familiar. No Columbus, you'll sail over the edge!

        September 26, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • ME II

      "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."
      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

      September 26, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • jon

      I agree. The numbers don't add up. They are saying the universe is 13.7 billion years old and these pictures are looking back at 13.2 billion years ago? The light from those galaxies would have passed earth millions or billions of years ago. The Milky Way galaxy and our solar system that was formed by the big bang has been constantly moving outward but not even close to the speed of light. So I would think the galaxies we are looking at are more than 500 million years old. Depending on the exact location of the big bang in the universe these galaxies could be moving away from us in an opposite direction and could be throwing off the exact time existence we are looking at by a big margin. Knowing the spot where the big bang occurred could be used as a reference starting point of the universe and from there we could tell by the movement direction of galaxies where it began and what direction they are going which can give us a better calculation of the Galaxies age that we are looking at.

      September 26, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
      • Keep Looking Up

        The light would have passed the Earth, if not for inflation. It hasn't actually traveled 13.2 billion light years through space, it's been stretched out over time and the galaxies only appear to be that distance from us now. You can't pinpoint the Big Bang because it occurred everywhere simultaneously. The entire universe is the locus.

        September 26, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
  69. BoogerFree

    Do I see the Millennium Falcon in there? I Do, in the lower right!

    September 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
  70. Tyler

    I'll only look at a galaxy if it's 18 years old older.

    September 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • Spam

      rofl!

      September 26, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  71. LostinSLC

    Amazing as heck

    September 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
  72. Dannie

    Wow..the universe is really busy.

    September 26, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
  73. Marlin

    Awesome work NASA. Keep up this amazing work.

    September 26, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • j-max

      NASA didn't do that. God did that.

      September 26, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
      • brian

        yessr lol

        September 26, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
      • MDAT

        No.

        September 26, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
      • physics knows best

        That's right, he reached his holy hand down, slapped the hubble into orbit (it was made in heaven you know!) took pictures with it for ten years, let a bunch of dumb humans act like they kne whow to put the picture together, then used his photogrpahic eyesight to take a picture, and uploaded it to NASA's computers via USB (whihc He holds the patent in). Thank goodness God does all of this work for us and lets us run around and pretend to be smart, or we'd still be stupid like the people who worship those other gods, or worse, no god at all!

        September 27, 2012 at 3:29 pm |

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer