World's largest telescope will see the beginning of the universe

[jay gw]

Astronomers are preparing to build the world's largest telescope that could be 100 times more powerful than the Hubble and will peer back to the very beginning of the universe.

The new TMT (Thirty-Meter Telescope) will be the first of a new generation of massive Earth-based telescopes that will far eclipse today's largest observatories.

The TMT scope will be so large, it will be housed in an observatory the size of a football stadium resembling an eyeball. The TMT project will be the first realization of a new breed of super-scopes, known as Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes.


http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,69578,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

[Iamme]

Astronomers are preparing to build the world's largest telescope that could be 100 times more powerful than the Hubble and will peer back to the very beginning of the universe.

The new TMT (Thirty-Meter Telescope) will be the first of a new generation of massive Earth-based telescopes that will far eclipse today's largest observatories.

The TMT scope will be so large, it will be housed in an observatory the size of a football stadium resembling an eyeball. The TMT project will be the first realization of a new breed of super-scopes, known as Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes.


http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,69578,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

That's impossible!...because man occured well after the beginning of the universe. There is no way we can make up for lost time and see that which occured before us. ( I can explain, but simply, the speed of light is indeed a speed. You can't reverse it. It does take *forward* time to travel, duh.) Some deluded astrophysicists are propagating this ridiculous notion. Probably with the help of that guy who claims he has found the mathematical formula for something to appear from nothing.

Besides, there IS no beginning. They will never find it. It makes no sense that there was this beginning that just chose some point in time to appear out of nowheres and become this beginning. Moronic scientists, anyway.

More and more...that I read Discover magazine...watch tv learning channels, that half of what they talk about, like the ghost shows now on the Travel Channel are known lies that are told just to help sell ...whatever. A product, the show, a magazine. Whatever. If a tabloid can lie..then why can't they, if they can make money doing it?

[Alkatran]

That's impossible!...because man occured well after the beginning of the universe. There is no way we can make up for lost time and see that which occured before us. ( I can explain, but simply, the speed of light is indeed a speed. You can't reverse it. It does take *forward* time to travel, duh.) Some deluded astrophysicists are propagating this ridiculous notion. Probably with the help of that guy who claims he has found the mathematical formula for something to appear from nothing.

I don't think you quite understand how this works. No one says we're looking at thirteen billion years ago happening right now, we're looking at light EMITTED that long ago because it took it so long to reach us.

And if better telescopes show us what we would expect to see if the Big Bang happened, then that's pretty good evidence of a beginning.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

That's impossible!...because man occured well after the beginning of the universe. There is no way we can make up for lost time and see that which occured before us. ( I can explain, but simply, the speed of light is indeed a speed. You can't reverse it. It does take *forward* time to travel, duh.) Some deluded astrophysicists are propagating this ridiculous notion. Probably with the help of that guy who claims he has found the mathematical formula for something to appear from nothing.



I can only assume that this is some sort of strange joke, the alternative is not very flattering!

[TobiasTheViking]

I can only assume that this is some sort of strange joke, the alternative is not very flattering!
Not a joke. honestly, it really isn't. i wish it were, but it isn't.

Sincerely
Tobias

And no, i'm not being ironic or sarcastic or anything.. i wish i were :(

[Iamme]

I don't think you quite understand how this works. No one says we're looking at thirteen billion years ago happening right now, we're looking at light EMITTED that long ago because it took it so long to reach us.

And if better telescopes show us what we would expect to see if the Big Bang happened, then that's pretty good evidence of a beginning.

Same thing! If you see light from that long ago, you are seeing time from that long ago.

[TobiasTheViking]

Same thing! If you see light from that long ago, you are seeing time from that long ago.
But that is how it works, we know that..

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can only assume that this is some sort of strange joke, the alternative is not very flattering!
I agree. He's got to be kidding.


That's impossible!...because man occured well after the beginning of the universe. There is no way we can make up for lost time and see that which occured before us.
Before when, exactly? Before humans evolved? Before telescopes were invented? Before yesterday? Before right this very moment?

~~ Paul

[Donks]

That's impossible!...because man occured well after the beginning of the universe. There is no way we can make up for lost time and see that which occured before us. ( I can explain, but simply, the speed of light is indeed a speed. You can't reverse it. It does take *forward* time to travel, duh.)
Please, do explain. I am really interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[logical muse]

And if you think that's impossible, wait till they build the 60-100 metre telescope!

OverWhelmingly Large (OWL) Telescope (http://www.tmt.org/tmt/technology) (Scroll down to bottom of page)

I can't presume to understand Iamme's point, but is it something like this:

The Sun is about 8 light-minutes away, meaning it takes 8 minutes for light from the Sun to get here. What we see is what the Sun looked like 8 minutes ago. A more powerful telescope won't show us what the Sun looked like 9 or ten minutes ago.

Is that what you're trying to say, Iamme? Please help us understand.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

A more powerful telescope won't show us what the Sun looked like 9 or ten minutes ago.

Is that what you're trying to say, Iamme? Please help us understand.

I bet the ancient Atlantians could have done it!

[jay gw]

Can someone explain why looking farther and farther outward from the earth means you're seeing what happened farther and farther back in time?

If light was emitted billions of years ago then why not just wait for it to hit earth? It will hit the earth eventually won't it? Who cares about looking farther outwards. Maybe they think it's getting them closer to the light to use telescopes.

And - what if there was no light emitted prior to year X? How does anyone know that light has always been emitted - there's no proof of that at all. Light may only have been emitted in the last 10 billion years or whenever. No way to prove otherwise. Prior to the big bang it's possible that in all the universe there was not one single light or radiation emitting body.

Ok, so let's say there was no body emitting light - that would provide the evidence that the universe came into being at the big bang and nothing existed prior to that. Ok, so say that happens - how does an astronomer show that there was a universe or anything anywhere prior to the big bang if there are no light emitting bodies?

[GodMark2]

That's impossible!...

Forgive me for what I am about to say.

Iamme is right.

At least for the first two words.

Seeing back to the beginning of the universe is impossible with any telescope collecting EM radiation. At some finite time after the beginning event, there existed a plasma. Things had cooled enough to allow quarks to form protons, but not enough for protons and electrons to form anything larger (like hydrogen). This particular form of plasma has some interesting properties, the one most relevant is it's opacity to all wavelengths of EM radiation. Visible light, radio, microwave, cosmic ray: All would be absorbed.

Now, it's splitting hairs, as this time was less than one minute after the event, and one minute out of 15 billion years is close enough to the beginning that some people might not notice the difference.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

This particular form of plasma has some interesting properties, the one most relevant is it's opacity to all wavelengths of EM radiation. Visible light, radio, microwave, cosmic ray: All would be absorbed.




Hmmmmmm.... I wonder if I could incorporate some of this stuff into my tinfoil hat .....

[GodMark2]

Can someone explain why looking farther and farther outward from the earth means you're seeing what happened farther and farther back in time?

If light was emitted billions of years ago then why not just wait for it to hit earth? It will hit the earth eventually won't it? Who cares about looking farther outwards. Maybe they think it's getting them closer to the light to use telescopes.

And - what if there was no light emitted prior to year X? How does anyone know that light has always been emitted - there's no proof of that at all. Light may only have been emitted in the last 10 billion years or whenever. No way to prove otherwise. Prior to the big bang it's possible that in all the universe there was not one single light or radiation emitting body.

The simple answer is that you won't see anything until it's light gets to your eyes (or telescope). If something happened on Alpha Proxima, we wouldn't see it happen for about four years. That's because light took that long to get to us. So, what we see right now, actually happened four years in the past. the further away you get, the longer it takes light to get here, so the older the event that caused that light must have been.

[Donks]

Can someone explain why looking farther and farther outward from the earth means you're seeing what happened farther and farther back in time?

If light was emitted billions of years ago then why not just wait for it to hit earth? It will hit the earth eventually won't it? Who cares about looking farther outwards. Maybe they think it's getting them closer to the light to use telescopes.
It's not that you reduce the light's travel time to Earth, so waiting a few years would solve it. It's that when an object is that far away it is very faint, so you need a bigger telescope too see anything.
And - what if there was no light emitted prior to year X? How does anyone know that light has always been emitted - there's no proof of that at all. Light may only have been emitted in the last 10 billion years or whenever. No way to prove otherwise. Prior to the big bang it's possible that in all the universe there was not one single light or radiation emitting body.
The current theory is that that spacetime itself "unfurled" because of the Big Bang, so there was no universe there, and there was no "before" either.

[Ducky]

I saw something on the Science channel about that...


Then I read this thread and forever that telescope will be tainted by my laughing my ass off at Iamme every time the telescope is mentioned.


Seriously Iamme, you HAVE to be screwing with us, yes? You cannot seriously expect us to believe a functioning human being posts with such idiocy?

Admit it, you're really some programmer's AI experiment with forums...

[Patricio Elicer]

Although a site has yet to be chosen for the behemoth, the higher elevations of Hawaii or Chile are under consideration

*Cough* (http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~stephens/telescopes/)

[Major Billy]

Hmmmmmm.... I wonder if I could incorporate some of this stuff into my tinfoil hat .....

Not a good idea. Tinfoil hats amplify frequency bands that coincide with those allocated to the US government between 1.2 Ghz and 1.4 Ghz. According to the FCC, These bands are supposedly reserved for ''radio location'' (ie, GPS), and other communications with satellites (see, for example, [3]). The 2.6 Ghz band coincides with mobile phone technology. Though not affiliated by government, these bands are at the hands of multinational corporations.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet

[emperorchaos]

I can't stand people who purport to understand what astronomy is and make claims based on their lack of knowledge.

Iamme, go away!

[KingMerv00]

That's impossible!...because man occured well after the beginning of the universe. There is no way we can make up for lost time and see that which occured before us. ( I can explain, but simply, the speed of light is indeed a speed. You can't reverse it. It does take *forward* time to travel, duh.) Some deluded astrophysicists are propagating this ridiculous notion. Probably with the help of that guy who claims he has found the mathematical formula for something to appear from nothing.

How do you see the sun? It takes time for light to arrive. Therefore you are seeing the past.

Besides, there IS no beginning. They will never find it. It makes no sense that there was this beginning that just chose some point in time to appear out of nowheres and become this beginning.

Please show your work.

Moronic scientists, anyway.

Oh SNAP!

More and more...that I read Discover magazine...watch tv learning channels, that half of what they talk about, like the ghost shows now on the Travel Channel are known lies that are told just to help sell ...whatever. A product, the show, a magazine. Whatever. If a tabloid can lie..then why can't they, if they can make money doing it?

Just because someone are smarter than you does not mean they are lying.

[Kiless]

Seriously. They should consider getting some more telescopes out our way. Lots of land. Far from major cities. Will mean lots of hot astrophysicists coming to my to..... ahem.

[Kiless]

Evidence!! (not just because I'm a dirty minded old lady...) : http://www.gdc.asn.au/index.php

[Psi Baba]

Can someone explain why looking farther and farther outward from the earth means you're seeing what happened farther and farther back in time?

If light was emitted billions of years ago then why not just wait for it to hit earth? It will hit the earth eventually won't it? Who cares about looking farther outwards. Maybe they think it's getting them closer to the light to use telescopes.
Any time you look at something, no matter what it is, what you see is not how it looks now, but how it looked the moment the light hitting your eye left the object. If you look across a valley at a structure that is 2 miles away, you are seeing it as it looked 0.00001 seconds ago. As you can see, in everyday life, this doesn't matter, because we perceive such a tiny time difference as being instant. But the farther away an object is, the more critical this becomes. As another poster already pointed out, when you look at the sun, you are seeing as it looked 8.5 minutes ago, not as looks right now. If the sun were suddenly switched off or went nova, we would not know about it for a full 8.5 minutes! So when we look at something we are seeing its past, just to different degrees depending on the distance of the object.

The nearest star to Earth* is Proxima Centauri which is 4.2 light-years away. If you look at it with your telescope, you are seeing it not as it looks right now, but as it looked 4.2 years ago. The problem is, with stars, that doesn't tell you much because most of them don't change, so if you look at Proxima Centauri 4.2 years from now, it will probably look the same as it does when you look at it today. If you go outside tonight, look up, and are lucky enough to witness a supernova occuring, chances are that supernova happened millions of years ago, even though you are just seeing it now because that's how long it would have taken the light to reach Earth. We can't see it if the light has gotten here yet. You may have heard of that supernova that was discovered by amatuer astronomers in 1994. That supernova is in an entirely different galaxy than ours, so it's pretty far away--20 million light-years in fact. That means that in April, 1994, scientists witnessed something that happened 20 million years ago. So anything that's happening right now that far away, won't be seen 'round these parts for 20 million years.

So when scientists say that a telescope allows them to look into the past, they mean that it allows them to see objects that are extremely far away, and because the distances are so staggeringly huge, even for light, it means that anything we look at that far away we are seeing as it looked a very long time ago. As exciting as this is, it also has the drawback that we can never see what the farthest reaches of the universe look like right now, because light just doesn't go that fast. And it doesn't mean that the telescopes are getting them "close to the light" it means that telescopes are able to detect fainter light that is reaching from us farther away. The light is here, we just need instruments that are powerful enough to make it out.

If you want to experience this effect in everday life, use sound instead of light as your medium. When you see a flash of lightning you know that the lightning itself may be miles away but the speed of light allows you to see it seemingly instantly. However, when you hear the thunder, it might be, say, 45 seconds later. So in effect, you are hearing something that you know occured 45 seconds in the past! It's the same with starlight just on a different scale.


*besides the Sun, for you pedants

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Seriously. They should consider getting some more telescopes out our way. Lots of land. Far from major cities. Will mean lots of hot astrophysicists coming to my to..... ahem.

Um.. I've run into, no not literally, a few astrophysicists and not many of them looked all that "hot" to me, even the female ones.

I did however once meet a rather attractive young lady studying for a PhD in some sort of biology related field .......

[Kiless]

Um.. I've run into, no not literally, a few astrophysicists and not many of them looked all that "hot" to me, even the female ones.

I did however once meet a rather attractive young lady studying for a PhD in some sort of biology related field .......

Go to TAM.


Seriously.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Go to TAM.


Seriously.

Time and money deficit ... :(


Also, I'm not convinced that my wife would be overjoyed to hear I planned to go to a place crammed full of incredibly smart, sexy women! :)

[Iamme]

Please, do explain. I am really interested to hear your thoughts on the subject.

Read my explanation in that other thread on the same subject as this. The one with the lesser number of posts on it.

[Iamme]

And it doesn't mean that the telescopes are getting them "close to the light" it means that telescopes are able to detect fainter light that is reaching from us farther away. The light is here, we just need instruments that are powerful enough to make it out.

You said it all, right here.

Now contemplate what would make you think by their looking through powerful telescopes that they are peering back into time?

Read my post on the other thread on this subject. If you find an error in my reasoning, let me know.

[HeyLeroy]

Thank-you, Iamme, for your contribution to my signature!

[Bronze Dog]

Now contemplate what would make you think by their looking through powerful telescopes that they are peering back into time?
If an object is billions of lightyears away, it means it the light we're receiving from it is billions of years old. If the light is billions of years old, that's what it looked like billions of years ago.

Fry: So, if the show aired a thousand years ago, how are they watching it now?

Professor Pharnsworth: Well, Omicron Persei 8 is about a thousand lightyears away, so the television waves are just now reaching them.

Fry: Yeah, yeah. Got it. Magic.

[PatKelley]

Just because someone are smarter than you does not mean they are lying.
Or making money. There are plenty of rich morons.

[Psi Baba]

You said it all, right here.

Now contemplate what would make you think by their looking through powerful telescopes that they are peering back into time?
I don't have to "contemplate" it, dimwit, I already know how. If you don't, that's your problem.
Read my post on the other thread on this subject. If you find an error in my reasoning, let me know.
The problem is not finding an error in your reasoning, it's finding reason or sensibility in your nonsensical posts. If you can't understand my post which is written in the simplest terms possible, then you are beyond hope. You need remedial education. Seriously. You are wasting our time.

[PatKelley]

You said it all, right here.

Now contemplate what would make you think by their looking through powerful telescopes that they are peering back into time?

Read my post on the other thread on this subject. If you find an error in my reasoning, let me know.
Let's go back to the tape-delayed game again. A football game is played, and taped for other people to watch at a more convenient time. When the tape-delayed viewers are watching the game, the game is not still going on. They are essentially viewing back in time.

Now, slow thoughts here. Take this very slowly.

I'm in one place. There are three games, which do not take place at the same time. The further they are from me, the more tape-delayed they are. I see all three games at the same time, but that does not mean the games were played at the same time, or are still being played.

Starting to get it?

[wollery]

Um.. I've run into, no not literally, a few astrophysicists and not many of them looked all that "hot" to me, even the female ones.

I did however once meet a rather attractive young lady studying for a PhD in some sort of biology related field .......Should I take this personally?? :rolleyes:

[AnotherSillyAlias]

Should I take this personally?? :rolleyes:

Certainly not, my sample was only a small one. Feel free to send me your evidence. :)