Skip to main content

How far away is that ancient galaxy?

Credit: NASA, ESA and P. Oesch (Yale University)
The news has been full of the remarkable discovery of galaxy GN-z11, which appears to have formed just 400 million years after the origins of the universe. Definitely 'A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.' But exactly how far? Unfortunately some of those reporting the news have been a little confused on the distance to the galaxy.



What do we actually know? We are seeing GN-z11 as it was around 400 million years after the Big Bang - so the light has taken 13.4 billion years to reach us. And it was discovered with a redshift of around z=11.1. (You can read the actual paper here.) That 'z' value represents the difference between the observed wavelength and the emitted wavelength divided by the emitted wavelength, so z=0 would mean there was no red shift at all.

Unfortunately, some of those reporting this went a step too far with headlines like this:

Here's a few more iffy remarks:
  • 'GN-z11 is a record-breaking 13.4 billion light years away...'
  • 'Located a record 13.4 billion light years from Earth...'
  • 'NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has discovered the most remote galaxy ever seen from Earth - 13.4 billion light years away.'
  • 'A galaxy 13.4 billion light years away has been spotted by the Hubble Space Telecope.'
It seems a reasonable idea. We've heard that the light has taken 13.4 billion years to reach us - so surely the galaxy is 13.4 billion light years away? Unfortunately, no - because the universe has not been sitting around doing nothing for the last 13.4 billion years. The point of that 11.1 value for z is that this galaxy is seriously red shifted, which means it is moving away from us at a heck of pace. While the light has been on its way, the universe has expanded massively, so this ancient galaxy is now far more than 13.4 billion light years away.

How far away? We don't know for certain. The calculation is messy. Luckily Edward Wright of UCLA has produced a calculator that will give us a feel for just how far away the galaxy is. The bad news is that there are several factors that have to be entered into the calculator, including an assumption about the nature of the curvature of the universe, Hubble's constant, which relates the redshift to the distance, and the proportion of matter and dark energy - the more dark energy, the faster the acceleration of the expansion. (I slightly over-simplify the model, but that's a fair picture.)

Plugging in what seem to be the best accepted current values into the calculator comes up with an approximate 'comoving radial distance', the most meaningful measure to call the distance to the galaxy, of around 31.8 billion light years - rather more than 13.4. Far, far away indeed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense