Is Space Dust a Limiter?

[Spuds]

The interstellar matter in space - the plasma, the dust, the boulders - these things must have a limiting effect upon the visual range of a space-based telescope the same way the Earth's atmosphere limits the range of terrestrially-based telescopes. Is Hubble really seeing galaxies thirteen billion light-years away? The dust must have a limiting effect, surely.

At that distance, we are observing the universe as it was thirteen billion years ago. The universe is said to be only some 13.7 billion years old. Let us ignore, for the moment, that at that youthful phase in the big-bang universe's development, Hubble observes fully developed galaxies and clusters of galaxies. These structures cannot possibly have formed in such a short time, according to standard theory. But let us ignore that for now. I am only concerned with the limiting factor of the interstellar medium.

Sir Edwin Hubble, for whom the space telescope is named, observed the spectrographic red-shifts of many objects in space and theorized that this redshift might be caused by the stretching of the light-waves emitted by quickly receding objects - doppler effect. Edwin Hubble disliked this theory, however, because if one works it backwards, one deduces a big-bang universe. He couldn't propose an alternative, intrinsic red-shift theory, so for a long time, the theory stood. Because of the belief that doppler causes redshift, we believe the universe is expanding, and because of this we believe the universe began in a big-bang.

Or rather, some believe it.

All that is required to falsify this theory is a single observation of a high-redshifted object located in front of a low-redshift object, or two objects with disparate redshift values to be seen interacting. However, because of the belief in the theory, it becomes extremely difficult to observe anything to falsify it. A high-redshift object will ALWAYS be perceived to be behind a low-redshift object because the theory demands it.

Enter Dr. Halton Arp. In the 1960's, he began to catalogue "peculiar galaxies" of odd shapes. These galaxies appeared to be interacting with each other. Quasars (quasi-stellar objects of enormously high redshift) were the largest, most luminous and most distant objects ever observed (according to the doppler theory). Arp observed that Quasars seem to be located preferentially around galaxies. He also observed not one, but several instances of high-redshift quasars located in front of and interacting with low-redshift galaxies.

One example is NGC 7603. It is comprised of two interacting galaxies of disparate redshift, each with an attendant quasar of another redshift value. This observation clearly falsifies the theory. However, the big-bang cosmologists have explained it away as a coincidence, as nothing more than a chance alignment. Call your local bookie and calculate the probability - the odds against this are - ahem - astronomically, vanishingly small! However, perhaps such a fluke is possible.

Another such example is NGC 3516. Again, objects of disparate redshift value seen interacting. Again explained away as a chance alignment. Okay, if it happens once it's a fluke. Twice? A staggering coincidence of truly unbelievable "hand-of-god" proportions.

Another example is NGC 4319. Again, explained away as a chance alignment. How many times must a theory be falsified by observation before it fails? According to the scientific method, only once. It seems, however, that according to astrophysicists, their theories can't fail, ever, no matter what.

Let us not discuss the fact that observation seems to suggest an intrinsic redshift which has more to do with a galaxy's age than it has to do with its speed or distance. Forget that direct observation of fully-formed galactic structures billions of years before they could possibly have existed puts big-bang dogma on extremely shaky ground. Ignore the fact that Dr. Halton Arp, through direct observation and measurement, falsified the theory that doppler causes redshift. Turn a blind eye to the fact that this means our universe is NOT EXPANDING and that this also is bad news for the big-bang.

I only want to know about the dust.

[earls]

You said it yourself: "The dust must have a limiting effect, surely."

Considering that expanding space is the current solution to Olber's Paradox, if space is not expanding, then something must be blocking the light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010923.html

[MattEU]

space dust - can Hubble only look in certain directions in the Universe to avoid space dust or can it see everywhere?

is there anything that can block the other types of telescopes like the radio telescopes for example? is there a limit to how far the information they receive can travel, so there is a limit to how far they can "see"?

[Siggy_G]

Considering that expanding space is the current solution to Olber's Paradox, if space is not expanding, then something must be blocking the light.

Photons from very distant stars would only appear fractionally (over a period of time) in our line of sight. That's the main reason why cameras need a very long exposure time for collecting enough light onto the photo film (in addition to the film's light sensitivity). The radial distribution of photons from a star is wearing thin and fractional as radius goes towards infinity. That explains why any line of sight wouldn't end up at a star at any given time - contrary to the odd assumption of this "paradox". The few photons that are left, from a distant star at a given line of sight, could well be scattered off before they reach us anyway.

Further on, if something is blocking the light (like the NASA image), then a thinner presence/distribution and interaction with such clouds could cause red shift and dimming as well.

[Spuds]

Hmmm... so it seems we have another paradox that exists only in the minds of people who believe in the impossible. However, my question remains unanswered. How far can we reasonably expect a space-based telescope to see? Do interstellar media have a limiting effect upon "seeing" the same way the atmosphere limits the effective magnification of ground-based scopes? How great is the effect? Is it unreasonable to expect that a telescope, even one based in space, can see an object thirteen billion light-years away? It seems unreasonable to me.

[Siggy_G]

How far can we reasonably expect a space-based telescope to see?

Hubble Deep Field image:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 1/image/a/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

Not sure about the distance, since they use red shift and expansion as the measuring factors, which we (EU) know are questionable. But from the amount of galaxies seen within the tiny field of view (1/30 of the full moon), the distance can probably be approximated.

Do interstellar media have a limiting effect upon "seeing" the same way the atmosphere limits the effective magnification of ground-based scopes? How great is the effect?

This is a quick explanation on Absorption. I'm not convinced about the reasoning on re-radiation and the resulting super-brightness though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_ ... Absorption

Is it unreasonable to expect that a telescope, even one based in space, can see an object thirteen billion light-years away? It seems unreasonable to me.

The further away, the lesser the possibility that specific photons reach out within the chosen line of sight. With ideal equipment and days of exposure time, one should receive statistic photons from even 13 billion light years distant objects. Though, my personal view is, that the most distant photons will be fractionally distributed along the line of sight and will be scattered on their journey. Hence, the photons from such a distant star will merge randomly with other stars on that image and contribute to image noise.

[Siggy_G]

Do interstellar media have a limiting effect upon "seeing" the same way the atmosphere limits the effective magnification of ground-based scopes? How great is the effect?

I should probably add this:

"The field selected for the observations needed to fulfill several criteria. It had to be at a high galactic latitude, because dust and obscuring matter in the plane of the Milky Way's disc prevents observations of distant galaxies at low galactic latitudes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Dee ... _selection

To which extent the same effect occurs outside the Milky Way's ecliptic, I'm not sure, but galaxies themselves are close to opaque and they have fringes that are semitransparent. Other mediums in-between can have an occluding effect, like Earls pointed out.

[redeye]

Anisotropy?

A plasma lamp displaying the nature of plasmas, in this case, the phenomenon of "filamentation"Cosmologists use the term to describe the uneven temperature distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation. There is evidence for a so-called "Axis of Evil"[1] in the early Universe that is at odds with the currently favored theory of rapid expansion after the Big Bang. Cosmic anisotropy has also been seen in the alignment of galaxies' rotation axes and polarisation angles of quasars.

Physicists use the term anisotropy to describe direction-dependent properties of materials. Magnetic anisotropy, for example, may occur in a plasma, so that its magnetic field is oriented in a preferred direction. Plasmas may also show "filamentation" (such as that seen in lightning or a plasma globe) that is directional.

From Wiki

A possible solution to Olber's paradox?

Cheers!

[junglelord]

The density of the intersteller dust is not so great as to limit telescopes....rather the gathering of dust is a better question.

Infact plasma and dust tend to get together, so what we see as filaments, are plasma/dust trails of birkeland currents. The weblike nature of the cosmos, allows the use of telescopes and infact the gathering of dust and plasma is what we are looing for and looking at.

One thing we can say for certain, the NASA picture of the day is spectacular...the explanations are more then retarded, but thats besides the point. One picture is worth a thousand words, as they say...so what do you think, is dust a problem?


Click here for a bigger view of this wonderful picture
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/SHOWCASE/M31.HTM

Or check out this pic of the Orion Nebula and ask yourself is dust a problem?


Click here for the big picture
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wired ... o1006a.jpg

From this new satellite

The European Southern Observatory’s new VISTA telescope’s enormous field of view allows it to image the entire nebula at once. It’s been designed to capture near-infrared light. The longer wavelengths of light in that part of the spectrum allow rays to pass through dusty space without being scattering.

The Orion Nebula is located about 1,350 light-years from Earth. The cloud of gas and dust is a nursery for young stars. The red blobs in the features near the center of the image are young, growing stars that are hidden by dust in visible light.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/vista-orion/

[Spuds]

Wow! You guys are all great! I don't have much experience with forum contributions. It looks like you've given me some homework. I have always been suspicious of distance estimates. Have read every TPOD for the past several years. Love this stuff! The theory side of things makes observational astronomy so much more enjoyable! I find it surprising how little this question has been asked. Are people just assuming we are looking through an empty vacuum? So many questions. I really like the way this forum seems to ask more questions than it answers.

[Spuds]

Or check out this pic of the Orion Nebula and ask yourself is dust a problem?

Oh, yah. I've always thought so. How much of a problem is it? It seems a difficult problem to quantify. Is this why nobody asks the question?