What Ultra Deep Space probably looks like

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #1 25-01-2011, 09:07 PM

I got to thinking about my favourite Deep Space image, the 'Hubble Ultra Deep Field' image, the one with thousands of Galaxies, and thought back to the Astronomers saying that the image is probably indicative of the whole sky anywhere in any direction.

So I copy/pasted 12 of the Hubble images together (mosaic style) to see what Ultra Deep Space would look like with a larger FOV (I moved a few galaxies around so it didn't look repetitive).

WOW! it starts getting even more mind boggling than the original image.
Just thinking that Deep Space probably looks like this in every part of space in any direction, and that this concocted image of 12x images is still smaller than quarter the diameter of the Moon!!!!!

Imagine being able to see the whole of the sky like this

For people who have never seen the 'Hubble Ultra Deep Field' image before, every spot of light in the image is a seperate Galaxy except for the few stars in the foreground. They are in our Galaxy. The area imaged is smaller than quarter of the Moon. The Original single image is an area equal to 1/10th the diameter of the Moon
There are over 100,000 Galaxies in the x12 image.

Here it is. Hubble Ultra Deep x12:

M54 (Molly) · #2 25-01-2011, 09:18 PM

I love it! It is so beautiful. Thanks Ken.

Do you ever wonder what this thing we call the Universe is?
I can't get my head around it, it's insane. But beautiful.

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #3 25-01-2011, 09:26 PM

Thanks Molly.

Yep, insanely beautiful, and beyond comprehension!
That's what inspired me to do this mosaic.

Billions or possibly Trillions of Galaxies, each with Billions of stars!

Kevnool (Kev) · #4 25-01-2011, 09:49 PM

Ken

Wasnt that original image from one of the less populated regoins of the sky?

I thought it was and imagine the pic in a bit more populated region.

Great mosaic tho.

Cheers Kev.

leon · #5 25-01-2011, 10:10 PM

That is just mind boggling Ken, nicely executed mate.

Leon

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #6 25-01-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevnool

Ken

Wasnt that original image from one of the less populated regoins of the sky?

I thought it was and imagine the pic in a bit more populated region.

Great mosaic tho.

Cheers Kev.

Yes Kev, they chose an empty spot in Fornax. They wanted to see what was in fairly empty space.

Thanks Leon.

Here is a comparison of the area (their original and my 12x mosaic) against the size of the Moon. The large image (thier original 'Ultra') shows what is in the small rectangle on the Moon.

Now that you can see 10,000+ galaxies compared to the size of the Moon (or 100,000 in the 12x image) imagine the whole sky!!!!!!

danielsun · #7 25-01-2011, 10:32 PM

Nicely done and I think your spot on ken.

The original hubble image showed that much in such a small field and I remember the doco saying that they just aimed it at a very dark part of the sky(correct me if i'm wrong but I think it was a 10 day exposure )and that was the result, so I agree and think it may be pretty much like that everywhere.

With that many stars and in all them Galaxy's, how can there not be life out there!! But that's probably a whole new can of worms.

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #8 25-01-2011, 10:41 PM

. . . and just a reminder of the original Ultra Deep Field image.

I couldn't resist posting it in here, it is so spectacular!

Only 9 things in the whole image aren't Galaxies. They are stars in our Galaxy.
The other 10,000+ objects are Galaxies. You can even see some slight Gravitational Lensing arcs indicating Galaxies out of sight and further away behind these Galaxies.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...df_hst_big.jpg

Enjoy

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #9 25-01-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielsun

Nicely done and I think your spot on ken.

The original hubble image showed that much in such a small field and I remember the doco saying that they just aimed it at a very dark part of the sky(correct me if i'm wrong but I think it was a 10 day exposure )and that was the result, so I agree and think it may be pretty much like that everywhere.

Yes Daniel, a total of 11.3 days imaging time (not 1 single 11.3 day image).

It is made up of 800 x 21 minute exposures. 11.3 days.
Try that with a DSLR

Ric · #10 25-01-2011, 10:52 PM

I love your way of thinking Ken, that's a classic mosaic.

I look at that and think that possibilities for intelligent life out there are endless.

Cheers

michaellxv (Michael) · #11 25-01-2011, 11:02 PM

It sure is mind bogling. It's just numbers that we have no real understanding of. Even though we regularly hear finance figures of billions of dollars its just a meaningless number that we have no real experience of.

I just worked out that I have been alive for about 1.4billion seconds. But that still doesn't help me appreciate that as a real number.

But it's out there. There are more galaxies in that small space than we can see stars even from a dark site.

Is this the kind of stuff the acient Greek philosophers chewed the fat over?

mill (Martin) · #12 25-01-2011, 11:10 PM

If you would switch on the principal galagy catalog on in "the sky" or "starry night", you would only see blue and nothing else from all sides

All the blue is galaxies.

Osirisra (Ken) · #13 25-01-2011, 11:17 PM

The HUDF has been one my desktop for a long time and I still constantly stare at it in utter amazing wonderment. One of, if not the most epic picture of all time.

SkyViking (Rolf) · #14 26-01-2011, 06:41 AM

Fascinating indeed, and even more that we can capture images of these distant objects! Imagine what we'll see once the JWST is up and running.

Esseth (Alan) · #15 26-01-2011, 07:55 AM

Amazing is a good word there.

ZeroID (Brent) · #16 26-01-2011, 09:43 AM

xelasnave · #17 26-01-2011, 10:12 AM

Hi Ken,

I also am very fond of the Deep Sky Hubble "shots".

The field of view for the Deep SKY shots is approx the area of sky covered by a small grain of sand held at arms length.

So next time when under a clear sky take the time to hold a grain of sand at arms length and imagine that behind that grain are thousands of galaxies and no matter upon what trajectory you hold your arm that gain of sand will hide thousands of galaxies... even if the Moon or Sun is in the way behind them we can imagine thousands of galaxies behind our grain of sand.

AND realize this also ... our deep sky shots are limited to the observable Universe (say approx 14 billion light years diameter) but beyond our observable universe there is even more Universe

.....the Universe is thought to be some 160 billion light years in diameter (I have read various estimates but the fact is it is much bigger than we can observe)....and so there are no doubt thousands more galaxies behind our grain of sand that we will never see).... in fact if one could photograph all galaxies out to the very edge of the universe (if there is an outer edge at all

) I am sure a deep field shot would simply appear white all over because there would simply be so many galaxies.

alex.

strongmanmike (Michael) · #18 26-01-2011, 10:20 AM

For those that believe a God made all this you have to ask - why?

For those that believe a God didn't make it all you have to ask - how?

Mike

xelasnave · #19 26-01-2011, 10:20 AM

Given I have made the statement in the last sentence above I must also say I am aware of Olbers' paradox. The paradox involves the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. ...I do think one is hard pressed to say the sky is dark when we have the Deep Sky shots.
alex

xelasnave · #20 26-01-2011, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

For those that believe a God made all this you have to ask - why?

For those that believe a God didn't make it all you have to ask - how?

Mike

Mike the reason I favour an infinite universe is because neither of these questions need be asked.

alex