Astronomers have found the most distant galaxy cluster ever seen: the sexily-named SXDF-XCLJ0218-0510.

First, the picture, then the words:

Yikes! What’s all that then?

Okay, first, this picture is littered with stars and galaxies. The galaxies are so far away they’re hard to distinguish from the stars! The dots that have arrows pointing to them are the galaxies that are most likely part of the cluster. The ones with circles have had their distance measured and are known to be part of the cluster for sure. The contour lines represent the detection of very hot gas, which is a dead giveaway that we’re dealing with a cluster here; all big clusters have gas swirling around them that gives off X-rays; the lines are like a topographic map telling you where the (otherwise invisible) gas is in the picture.

"So what?", you might say. We’ve seen lots of clusters before. Ah, but this one is different: it’s a whopping 9.6 billion light years away.

Billion. With a B.

Studying clusters is important because it tells us a lot about the environment in which galaxies form. When we’re trying to figure out the overall structure of the Universe — and it’s incredible to me that we can even think about doing such a thing — clusters are the single biggest component. Understanding them means understanding the Universe itself.

But there’s more. Because clusters are so big and bright, they can be seen really far away. In space, distance means time; the farther away we see an object, the younger the Universe was when the light left that object. In the case of this newly found cluster, the light we see left it 9.6 billion years ago — making it 400 million light years farther away than the next-most distant cluster ever seen. The Universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so we’re seeing this structure as it was not too long after it formed.

And that’s the key issue. Clusters are so big that they take quite a bit of time to form. But how long? We’re not sure. We’re not sure exactly how long galaxies take to be born either. So every time we see one farther away we push back the time it takes to form them. Think of it this way: if it takes, say, 5 billion years to form a cluster, then we wouldn’t see any more than 13.7 – 5 = 8.7 billion light years away. This one is 9.6 billion, so we know that clusters cannot take more than 13.7 – 9.6 = 4.1 billion years to form. In reality they probably take quite a bit less time. Observations like this one will help us understand just how much less.

The reason this is important is because we don’t know the exact timeline of the Universe after the Big Bang. We know when it happened, and we know when the first stars formed, but it’s hard to say when the first galaxies and clusters of galaxies started to come together. Most likely that wasn’t a firm time, but it was spread out over hundreds of millions or billions of years. But the more we see, the better we can figure that out. As it happens, the colors of the galaxies in this image give a clue as to how old they are: young stars are blue, and old stars are red, so by looking carefully at the mix the age of the galaxies can be estimated. The galaxies in this cluster look like they formed around 11.5 billion years ago, making them already a couple of billion years old when they emitted the light we see in the picture.

Another interesting thing: you can’t really tell from this image, but in the original data it looks like there are actually two clusters here at about the same distance. One of them has that hot gas, but the other is more indistinct and the detection of gas isn’t as strong. It’s entirely possible that this other cluster isn’t quite fully formed yet. If that’s so, then that means astronomers are able to detect clusters so far away that we can now actually see them forming. The more of those we find, the better our understanding will be of just how these enormous structures came to be.

Looking at distant clusters also tells us about the early universe. You can’t build a skyscraper unless the ground can support it, and you can’t build a galaxy cluster unless the Universe has the right conditions for it. The Universe was different 10 billion years ago: smaller, denser, warmer. All of these are important parameters when you’re building something like a cluster.

So by examining the edifice we can understand the environment it sits in. In this case, the building is a thousand galaxies each with a hundred billion suns, and the environment is the cosmos itself. It’s an architectural study written across the entire sky! And every detail gets us that much closer to understanding how everything — literally — came to be.

Image credit: Subaru/XMM

Timothy Ferris, in The Science of Liberty:

In 1900 there was not a single liberal democracy in the world (since none yet had universal suffrage); by 1950 there were twenty-two.

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has an ongoing series of posts in which he highlights “good sentences.” At first the conceit bugged me a bit, as how good can a single sentence be? It’s not like you have space to develop a sensible argument or anything.

But that’s the point, of course. A really good sentence packs a wallop because it fits an enormous amount into very few words. One technique for doing that is to exhibit an underlying assumption that is a remarkable claim in its own right. If I were to have tried to make the point that Ferris makes above, it would have been something like this:

Liberal democracies were established in fits and starts over a period of hundreds of years. The first major steps happened in countries like Britain, the United States, and France, where aristocratic systems were replaced (with different amounts of violence) by rule by popular vote. But I would argue that a true liberal democracy is one that features universal suffrage — every adult citizen has a right to participate. By that standard, there weren’t any liberal democracies in existence in the year 1900; but fifty years later, there were twenty-two.

Makes the point, but it’s a somewhat ponderous collection of mediocre sentences, rather than a single one of immense power. That’s the difference between someone who writes things, like me, and a true writer. I’m trying to learn.

Ferris’s book seems excellent, although I’ve just started reading it. It has a provocative thesis: the Enlightenment values of liberal democracy and scientific reasoning didn’t simply arise together. The emergence of science is rightfully understood as the cause of the democratic revolution. That’s the kind of thing I’d be happy to believe is true, so I’m especially skeptical, but I’m looking forward to the argument.

Telescopes have been around since the very early 17th century when Hans Lippershey, Dutch lens maker, applied for a patent in 1608.  They haven’t been around quite long enough for us to take them completely for granted, especially when we have Hubble, et al, rocking our world on a daily basis; but we do tend to look back at those first telescopes and cough politely.  What I think is almost as amazing as the fact of the telescope itself is how bright, how scary-brilliant, men like Galileo, Herschel and Newton were to see so much with so little.

1843 Refracting Telescope, Cincinnati Observatory

What I toss off as “so little” was, in fact, unadulterated genius.  The first telescopes were “refracting”, where basically a lens and eyepiece are used to gather more light than the human eye alone is capable of doing, bending the light (refracting it) so that it comes to a focal point, then giving you a brighter, cleaner magnified image.  The foundation of this science was in the manufacture of eyeglasses.  Can you imagine how boggling the concept of bending light was to the general public?

Although refracting telescopes revolutionized our understanding of astronomy, there are many flaws inherent to the design.  There is distortion of the image that can’t be corrected, for one thing.  Also, although you can place multiple refracting lenses in a line to increase magnification, you’ll quickly have a telescope so unwieldy it’s impossible to use.  Working to correct these (and other) problems, the next major advancement was the reflecting telescope.  A reflecting telescope uses a system of parabolic mirrors instead of refracting lenses.  Isaac Newton had developed a good, working reflector by 1668, but the idea was being kicked about since at least 1616.

Replica of Newton's second telescope, ca. 1672

A “catadioptric” system is one that combines refraction and reflection.  This combination has the advantage of very good error correction coupled with a wide view field.  This is what you’ll often find in telephoto lenses.

Other than optic telescopes (of which these three are examples), there are radio telescopes; infrared telescopes; ultraviolet, x-ray, solar, and space telescopes; gamma-ray, cosmic-ray, gravitational wave, and high-energy particle telescopes, just to name a few.  Seems like for everything at which you would wish to look, there’s a telescope designed for the job.

Very Large Array Radio Telescopes, USA, New Mexico, by Hajor 080804

The science of “seeing far” is really still in its infancy, and every time there’s an advancement in telescopes, there’s a shock wave through the astronomical community.  Imagine what Galileo could have accomplished with a decent, mid-priced modern telescope.  Imagine what he could have accomplished with the Hubble, Webb, or Spitzer space telescopes.

Maybe our next “Galileo” is reading this blog right now, imagining what he (or she) will see when it’s his turn to see far.

Future Astronomers - Image found published to PD on PhotoBucket

As BP built its 100-ton containment dome and slowly towed it out to the site of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, company representatives warned that it was no certainty the technique would be able to stem the flow of oil 5,000 feet below the water’s surface. Unfortunately, those warnings were correct. On Saturday, ice-like gas hydrates built up on the steel-and-concrete containment box and prevented the box from getting a seal on the leak. The big question is: Now what?

The idea behind the containment dome was that once placed on top of the leaks, it would pump oil up a pipe to a tanker on the surface and keep more oil from getting into the Gulf, BP chief operating officer Doug Suttles says.

The icy buildup on the containment box made it too buoyant and clogged it up, BP’s Suttles said. Workers who had carefully lowered the massive box over the leak nearly a mile below the surface had to lift it and move it some 600 feet to the side. If it had worked, authorities had said it would reduce the flow by about 85 percent [MSNBC].

On Sunday, after that failure, Suttles said that BP responders wouldn’t give up on the containment box idea. Raising it back up would warm the structure enough to clear off the buildup, but they need a way to stop them from reforming when the box descends again. Pumping the box with methanol or warm water to keep its temperature higher is one option. Suttles says there are a few more alternatives on the table, too:

“One is a smaller dome – we call it the ‘top hat’, and the second is to try to find a way to tap into the riser, the piece of pipe the oil is flowing through, and take it directly from that pipe up to the ship on the surface.” The smaller containment dome would theoretically be less likely to get blocked by hydrates because it would contain less water. It could be ready to deploy on Tuesday or Wednesday [BBC News].

And BP is preparing one other method to stop the leak: garbage. By injecting the leaking area with a so-called “junk shot” made of tires, golf balls, and other debris, Suttles says it’s possible to plug up the leak.

“We have some pipe work on the blowout preventer, and if we can open certain valves on that we could inject basically just rubber and other type of material into [it] to plug it up, not much different to the way you might plug up a toilet,” he said [BBC News].

Through it all, the oil company is still working on a relief well that would be a much better and more permanent solution than funneling the leak to a tanker on the surface. But that’s a three-month process, and despite the fact that it feels like the Deepwater Horizon leak has been pouring oil into the Gulf perpetually, still not three weeks have passed since the explosion that killed 11 and eventually caused the rig to sink.

Thus far fortunate weather patterns have kept the slick mostly out to sea and away from the Gulf Coast, but that luck could be changing. Tar balls—pieces of hardened oil—showed up on Alabama shores over the weekend. Responders can’t say for sure yet whether they’re from the BP oil spill, but it’s a good bet.

Previous posts on the BP oil spill:
80beats: 5 Offshore Oil Hotspots Beyond the Gulf That Could Boom—Or Go Boom
80beats: Gulf Oil Spill: Do Chemical Dispersants Pose Their Own Environmental Risk?
80beats: Gulf Oil Spill: Fisheries Closed; Louisiana Wetlands Now in Jeopardy
80beats: Gulf Oil Spill Reaches U.S. Coast; New Orleans Reeks of “Pungent Fuel Smell”
80beats: Uh-Oh: Gulf Oil Spill May Be 5 Times Worse Than Previously Thought
80beats: Coast Guard’s New Plan To Contain Gulf Oil Spill: Light It on Fire

Image: NOAA, the 72-hour projection as of May 9

So it’s Elena Kagan. She’ll probably be nominated. Pointer to my earlier post why it doesn’t matter that there’s no Protestant on the court in substantive terms.

Attention, DC readers! I’ll be one of the speakers this Saturday at a meeting entitled “Science Writing: From Eureka to Digital Publishing.” I’ll be giving the “digital tools and techniques” talk. Don’t expect an html tutorial; I’ll be talking instead about how to adapt the fundamental of good science writing to new formats.

Here’s where you can register. To get the $35 member discount, use the promo code 182603.

From the meeting web site:

Co-sponsored with the Science-Medical Writing
Concentration of the Master of Arts in Writing Program, Johns Hopkins University.

From cells to stars, from evolution to swine flu, writing about diverse and complex scientific topics is an engaging, challenging endeavor requiring special skills. Today, well-known practitioners discuss how to find ideas, develop essential skills, and thrive in the digital age. Their ideas resonate with people currently working in the science or medical fields, writers who want to re-direct their work toward science or medicine, or anyone interested in how scientific information is communicated to the public.

9:30 to 10:45 a.m. Getting Started

Challenges of science writing. How to target audiences and choose an area of concentration.Ann Finkbeiner, writer, columnist, critic, and director of the Master of Arts in Science Writing Program at Johns Hopkins University; Chris Mooney, author and Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT; Nancy Shute, contributing editor and blogger for U.S. News & World Report and vice president of the National Association of Science Writers.

11 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Finding and Developing Ideas

Writing about advances in science and medicine, science policy, and the scientists themselves. Chris Mooney.

12:15 to 1:15 p.m. Lunch

Participants provide their own lunch.

1:15 to 2:30 p.m. Five Essential Skills of Science Writing

Explaining, storytelling, profiling people, establishing perspective, and using creative language. Jon Hamilton, correspondent, National Public Radio.

2:45 to 3:30 p.m. Digital Tools and Techniques

Succeeding in the online and multimedia world.Carl Zimmer, freelance writer for the New York Times, National Geographic, Scientific American, and the blog The Loom.

3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Advice from the Pros

Jon Hamilton, Nancy Shute, and Carl Zimmer give practical advice and answer questions.

The seminar is moderated by Nancy Shute.

LOCATION:
S. Dillon Ripley Center
1100 Jefferson Drive, SW
Metro: Smithsonian Mall Exit (Blue/Orange)