Talk:List of the most distant astronomical objects

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article created[edit]

More information from Talk:List of astronomical objects/workpage should be ported here --Micru (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The objects portion has been copied over. Now all we need to do is integrate the two lists together. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Andromeda was only determined via cepheid distance in the 1930's , it wasn't known as the most distant before that time. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your list seems to have a different aim from my list... Merging together probably wouldn't work. So, I've reorganized the page a bit with headers describing the lists. So there are two lists on this page. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have just realized about that.
- Your aim: longest distance measured
- My aim: farthest object detected (regardless if the distance was measured or not.
I think we could split the Datum column in two: "Detected in (year)" "Distance measured in (year)"
That way we can use the list for two aims. What do you think? --Micru (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That won't work, since some of them will be on one list but not the other. Two separate lists on this page works well enough. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


M58/M88/M109[edit]

On the 2nd list (objects by year of object discovery), how sure are we that Messier 58 (19.1±2.6Mpc) is truly further than Messier 88 (19.7±6Mpc) or Messier 109 (25.6±7.4Mpc)? Or do we only want to worry about M58 since M88/M109 were not yet cataloged as of 1779? Should we add NGC 1 (1880s/200Mly) to the list? skipping from M58 to a quasar seems a little extreme (IMHO). -- Kheider (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would add M88 instead of M109 (M88 is more distant for the same year of discovery). Your claims about the leap from M58 to a Quasar are fully justified. Please feel free to add NGC 1 to the list and other relevant information you can find. --Micru (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New table?[edit]

Possibility for a third table, most distant naked-eye object/event, as we have this: [1] 76.66.203.138 (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GRB 090429B[edit]

Progenitor of GRB 090429B Gamma-ray burst 2009—2011 z=~9.4 Announced for the first time at the American and Astronomical Society meeting in January 2010. Discovered by Cucchiara et al. via photometric redshift analysis of a J-band drop-out.[1]

Data include ground based facilities like the Gemini telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope. Not spectroscopically confirmed, but photometric redshift measure exclude at high confidence a z < 7.7 presence of a dusty galaxy which would mimic the observation.

I've excised this, because it's redshift was announced in May 2011; It was only observed in 2009, its distance wasn't determined yet. Per [2] it took two years to determine the distance. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ULAS J1120+0641[edit]

ULAS J1120+0641 Quasar 2011 -  z=7.085 The discovery was reported on 29 June 2011.[2] As of June 2011, it is the most distant known quasar, and it was the first quasar discovered beyond a redshift of 7.[2]

I've excised this entry since it is not the most distant known object, it's only the most distant known quasar, thus does not belong in the table of sequential most distant known objects. Further it was placed in a table sorted by date after 2009 and before 2009, sorted by distance, which makes no sense, since it's a sequential list of titleholders, and this has never been a titleholder. If it were the new titlist, it would appear at the top of the table, not suddenly appear in the middle. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "GRB090429B: Gemini-N infrared IR candidate".
  2. ^ a b "A luminous quasar at a redshift of z = 7.085". Nature. 474: 616–619. 2011. arXiv:1106.6088. doi:10.1038/nature10159. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

"List of the most distant astronomical objects"[edit]

Is the "#List of the most distant astronomical objects" section maintainable? This needs limiting, or else it would grow to millions of entries, so I added a limit of 10. But how do we keep track of the various claims, retractions, corrections, announcements? Anything that isn't the most distant ever discovered doesn't get the same hype, so you'd need to check every single paper of every deep z search study, or even subsequent papers based on data from them. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there does not seem to be much beyond z=7. Even if not, we just need to be clear what is included. Fotaun (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you're thinking about the now, not the future. As more studies are done, more data is processed, the number of deep-z objects increases. "selected examples" isn't very clear as to what is included -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating[edit]

I just saw on wikinews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z8_GND_5296 is the most distant galaxy ever. At 30 billion light years. I do not know how this list works so can someone who know the formulas for this list update it. I'm not trying to be a tattletale just want to point out something. ZSpeed (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That galaxy is located at z=7.51, which is not as far as other galaxies currently listed that use photometric redshift to determine their distance. (your galaxy has used spectroscopic redshift to determine its location, so it is the most distant galaxy determined by that method, not the most distant) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Light travel distance" as a column heading[edit]

Is it sensible to use "Light travel distance" in these tables rather than heading that column "Lookback Time" in G_years? Calling it a distance then necessitates explaining that it isn't the distance to the object but rather just a number contrived by multiplying the lookback time by the speed of light to get an equivalent distance. This is a misleading use of "distance" common in pop science web sites and even some press releases but need not be propagated here. George Dishman (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of the most distant astronomical objects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light travel distance[edit]

I took a cosmological calculator, set there parameters H0 to 67.74 and OmegaM to 0.3089 (from the table "Planck Collaboration Cosmological parameters" in the article Lambda-CDM model), pushed "Flat" button and calculated light travel distances from redshift z values in the table "Most distant astronomical objects with spectroscopic redshift determinations". Here is what I got (left table; table on the right is identical to the table in the article now):

Most distant astronomical objects with spectroscopic redshift determinations
Name Redshift
(z) 		Light travel distance
(Gly)
GN-z11 z=11.09 13.389
EGSY8p7 z=8.68 13.226
GRB 090423 z=8.2 13.180
EGS-zs8-1 z=7.73 13.130
z8 GND 5296 z=7.51 13.104
SXDF-NB1006-2 z=7.215 13.066
GN-108036 z=7.213 13.066
BDF-3299 z=7.109 13.051
ULAS J1120+0641 z=7.085 13.048
A1703 zD6 z=7.045 13.042
BDF-521 z=7.008 13.037
G2-1408 z=6.972 13.032
IOK-1 z=6.964 13.031
LAE J095950.99+021219.1 z=6.944 13.028
Most distant astronomical objects with spectroscopic redshift determinations
Name Redshift
(z) 		Light travel distance
(Gly)
GN-z11 z=11.09 13.4
EGSY8p7 z=8.68 13.2
GRB 090423 z=8.2 13.095
EGS-zs8-1 z=7.73 13.044
z8 GND 5296 z=7.51 13.02
SXDF-NB1006-2 z=7.215 12.91
GN-108036 z=7.213 12.91
BDF-3299 z=7.109 12.9
ULAS J1120+0641 z=7.085 12.9
A1703 zD6 z=7.045 12.89
BDF-521 z=7.008 12.89
G2-1408 z=6.972
IOK-1 z=6.964 12.88
LAE J095950.99+021219.1 z=6.944

We can see, that only for two first entries (GN-z11 and EGSY8p7) light travel distance is the same as in the article now. For others it is quite different. I suggest, that this is because old cosmological parameters were used for entries No.3 and above.

I propose the following solution: use calculated light travel distances in the article and add note, that "light travel distance was calculated from redshift value using cosmological calculator, with parameters H0=67.74 and OmegaM=0.3089". Illustr (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--- comment: The proliferation of units of measure in the original article makes the article hard to read, requiring lots of backtracking and mental calculation even to get a rough idea. I've seen "Mpc," "Gly," "z," "giga parsec," and more. It might be better to pick one unit of measure, to give all distances in that one unit of measure, then, for those who prefer some other unit of measure, to list some formulas (with citations) for converting from the chosen, primary unit of measure to other units measure. Alternatively, one might put several columns (as did the original commenter above), one with "z," one with "Gpc," and a third with "Gly," again with citations for the conversion formulas. 97.113.128.35 (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of the most distant astronomical objects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HD1 and HD2[edit]

These galaxies have allegedly been spotted. They are apparently about 100 million light years more distant than the current record holder. It is early yet to tell but iI am wondering if this warrants an inclusion or at least mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Space pierogi (talk • contribs) 06:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Space pierogi: and others - Related Wikipedia artilce has been newly created at "HD1" - contributions to the newly created article more than welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the cosmological background radiation? Isn't that a distant "object"?[edit]

The CBM is a humongously-ultra-huge object, which for some reason maybe disqualifies it (why though?). But isn't a wall of plasma, that was emitting the CMB-light, a literal object? (The human-monkies has even made photographs of it! like, actual photos of the late stage of the big bang "fireball".)

I skimmed the CMB article, and it seems to say that the redshift for the CMB is about 21.

And before that, even further away, the CNB, although it has not yet been pictured. And its the same object as depicted by the CMB, just deeper into it. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CMB is everywhere, though. So who can say where the detected radiation originated - some of it closer than other portions of it, and has been radiating around the finite but unbounded skies ever since, with comoving distance varying depending which particles you're observing. 2A00:23C8:8F9E:4801:1062:3B06:5E6:DFA2 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HD1 and other "candidate" spectroscopically-observed galaxies[edit]

Pinging contributors @Brolink and Stardust63:

In regards to a minor dispute about HD1's placement in this list, I would like to mention that Harikane et al. do not call HD1 "confirmed"; they explicitly call it a "candidate" with a tentative emission line awaiting spectroscopic confirmation. Other peer-reviewed papers that cite Harikane et al. follow their words and also call HD1 a candidate: Atek et al (2022), Castellano et al (2022), Naidu et al (2022), Pacucci et al. 2022. The same goes for the ~5-sigma single-line spectroscopic detections of S5-z17-1, GLASS-z12, and GLASS-z10, where authors do not call them "confirmed" and explicitly call them "tentative". Per verifiability guidelines on Wikipedia, it's best to follow these conclusions.

Stardust63 did bring up a good point in my talk page that some galaxies like A2744_YD4 are considered "confirmed" in the literture despite being spectroscopically detected at or below the 5-sigma threshold. For these galaxies, their redshifts were already justified by detections of multiple emission lines, unlike HD1 and others.

Nrco0e (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The JADES GS-z10/11/12/13 article has been accepted, and GN-z11 has been shown to be at z = 10.6[edit]

Two things - the JADES papers, Curtis-Lake et al. and Robertson et al. confirming the spec-z's for the z > 10 galaxies have been accepted by Nature Astronomy (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-01921-1 and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-01918-w), and GN-z11 has been shown by the same research team as being at z_spec = 10.6 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07234 but more specifically https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07256), quite definitively. 150.135.165.8 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects&oldid=1202173719"