August 28, 2006 9:52
This Week's Cosmic Cover Story
Normally TIME cover stories talk about the current news of the world; this week we're talking about news from the edge of the universe, and while it's current in one sense, it's more than 13 billion years old in another. If you want to find out how the very first stars were born, lighting up a universe that had been dark for hundreds of millions of years, go here and you'll understand astronomers' best understanding to date, and discover what new, giant telescopes will tell us to firm up that understanding (or of course you can also find it on newsstands this week).
This story was especially rewarding to report and write because observations of the very edge of the universe are usually made from space telescopes like the Hubble and the Spitzer. But I was lucky enough to learn, just as I thought my reporting was winding down, that a Caltech astronomer named Richard Ellis and his grad student, Daniel Stark, were going to be using the mammoth Keck Telescope in Hawaii to do their own search--and that I was welcome to come along. Not too many years ago, that would have meant going to the top of Mauna Kea, an extinct, nearly 14,000-ft. volcano, where the telescope sits in frigid, dangerously thin air--exciting, otherworldly and really really uncomfortable. But now astronomers usually observe from Keck headquarters in the town of Waimea, some 20 miles away and two miles lower in altitude. Much nicer.
Even better, Ellis and Stark were trying something audacious: looking for galaxies so dim and so far away that in theory they're impossible to see with the Keck. But Ellis had figured out a way to do so anyway, or so he claimed. Was he right? If you read the story, you'll find out--and also find out what it's like to be at one of the world's most powerful scopes with one of the world's most prominent stargazers.
About Eye On Science
TIME contributing writer Michael D. Lemonick fills you in on what's hot, what's cool, what's controversial and what's just plain silly in the world of science. Comments encouraged.
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
Recent Posts
Eye On Science Archives
August 2008
Choose a day to view events.
<< Previous Months
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
Reader Comments (5)
Can I add a shameless plug for my husband's book? "Chasing Hubble's Shadows: The Search for Galaxies at the Edge of Time," by astronomy writer Jeff Kanipe, is a recent book-length treatment for Farrar Straus Giroux of this topic -- even featuring a night of observing with Richard Ellis and Dan Stark at Keck. Readers might be interested in knowing about it for further information. Thanks.
--I think you just did. Jeff is a great writer, so I suspect it's a fine book. But now Jeff is honor-bound to plug MY next book
M.L.
Posted by Alexandra Witze | August 30, 2006 1:54 PM
"...observations of the very edge of the universe."
The concept of an "edge" to some darned big objects (solar systems, galaxies, a really good milkshake) are beyond me. Nonetheless, I read, and I enjoy articles like this one.
When our bold astronaut gets to the "edge" what is on the other side? OK, there is no "other side" I've read. So, what does that mean? Does our astronaut bonk his nose on an invisible wall of some kind?
Curved universe, infinite universe, steady state universe, these are concepts beyond my understanding. But, oh how I love to read about them!
Aeneas
Posted by Larry | August 31, 2006 11:47 AM
Dear Dr Lemonick, I wrote you on AOL, but I realized that that address may be old, so I take the liberty of writing you here. Sincere congratulations on your article on Dark Ages, I found it simply excellent. It is accurate, well written, clear, concise. Rarely such a complex issue is explained so plainly, accurately and beautifully in so short space. I wonder whether you could help me retrieve the illustration material, if at all possible. I often give popular astronomy seminars, and those images can really help a lot in presenting cosmology to a mixed audience. I would very much appreciate your help with this. Thank you so much.
Best regards
Elena Pian
Posted by Elena Pian | September 7, 2006 6:56 AM
What I read here sounds to me like an exciting science fiction story, because the truth is that the big bang theories have miserably failed to predict. The ability to predict is where we get validation of a theory. Why should we believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old when many large galaxies are known to exist at 11 billion light years distant? What kind of confidence should I have in the age notion if cosmologists cannot add two simple numbers. Large galaxies do not form quickly. Some of those distant galaxies are known to have yellowish light in them indicating old stars. If we add 11 billion years for the age to the object due to light delay, we must also add at least 10 more billion years to get the sum for the minimum age we are looking at. And there are many other issues too numerous to mention.
--Sorry to tell you, Allen, but you're confused in ways too numerous to mention. Just one of them is the false assertion that the BB theory didn't predict anything. It predicted the cosmic background radiation discovered in 1964.
Posted by Allen Graycek | September 20, 2006 3:36 PM
The theory of expansion holds that the universe increased in size by a factor of something like a million billion billion in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. I realize this question borders on the nonsensical, but if space expanded so exponentially, did anything similar happen in the temporal dimension? If space and time are really just aspects of the same "thing" -- spacetime -- why does time seem to be treated as a fixed yardstick by which changes in space can be measured? Not that I have any idea what the "expansion" of time could consist of.
Posted by Peter Gaffney | October 19, 2006 7:08 PM