Jump to content


Photo

Deep, deeper, deepest...

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13649
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 27 February 2014 - 10:55 PM

APM 08279+5255 – Quasar in Lynx
Telescope: Meade SN8, Orion Atlas EQ-G
Camera: Gary Honis Baader Modified Canon Rebel T2i
Filter: Orion Imaging Sky Glow Filter
Guide scope: DSX-90, DSI III, PHD
Exposure: 28x60sec, ISO 1600 saved as RAW
Darks: Internal
Flat: Synthetic
Software: Backyard EOS, Deep Sky Stacker, Nebulosity, Photoshop

At 12 billion light years away it just doesn't get any deeper than this. At magnitude 15.2 I'd think that this should be visible visually in large amateur scopes. The red color could make it tough.

Cool beans...

Attached Files



#2 nytecam

nytecam

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11408
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2005
  • Loc: London UK

Posted 28 February 2014 - 03:18 AM

Great image John :-) Can't you do a close crop close-up and post ? We're all glad the quasar is gravitationally lenses by a foreground gx group otherwise it would be several mags fainter than m15.2 !!! :-)

#3 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13649
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 28 February 2014 - 06:00 AM

Hmmm, I'll take a look and see if zooming in adds anything. This isn't quite a 100% crop and it was binned 2x2. The better option is to revisit this with my 10" SCT at f/10 and to take a closer look. This has got me interested in observing other gravitationally lensed quasars.

Very neat stuff!

#4 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10250
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 01 March 2014 - 07:46 AM

This is one I want to make a visual attempt on with my 8". Great image!

Pete

#5 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13649
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 01 March 2014 - 08:09 AM

Thanks! Images like this make great finder charts.

I took a closer look at the source images. I'm not convinced that I see any evidence of the gravitational lensing at this image scale. I'll try again with my larger scope when I get a chance.

#6 Ed D

Ed D

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2965
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Sunny South Florida

Posted 01 March 2014 - 12:06 PM

The image is awesome. What it represents simply blows me away! 12 Billion light years is mind boggling.

Ed D

#7 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10250
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 01 March 2014 - 06:54 PM

What's staggering here is how incredibly close those foreground stars are compared to the quasar. It all images so flat though of course.

Pete

#8 jgraham

jgraham

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13649
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Miami Valley Astronomical Society

Posted 01 March 2014 - 07:04 PM

I find it to be a very moving image with the stars of our own galaxy in the foreground, the galaxies in the background, and the quasar in the great distance. It is amazing that this object, which should be visible in a large telescope, is the farthest object we can see.

#9 timokarhula

timokarhula

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 251
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2006
  • Loc: Sweden

Posted 29 March 2014 - 05:38 AM

I observed visually this very APM 08279+5255 last night with my local club's 16-inch Optimized Dall-Kirkham and 544x magnification and the quasar was not an easy object (from my city of population of 145,000). Last night, I compared APM 08279+5255 with the famous twin quasar in Ursa Major and it was slightly easier to view than the APM-quasar. APM 08279+5255 has the V-magnitude of 16.5 and not 15.2 as indicated earlier so it can't be seen with an 8-inch. I stared at the central star in M57 with 780x power and it looked back on me.

/Timo Karhula

#10 sgottlieb

sgottlieb

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 953
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2007
  • Loc: SF Bay area

Posted 29 March 2014 - 06:24 PM

I know this object has come up several times previously, but as Timo mentioned the mag 15.2 usually quoted is *not* the visual magnitude, but rather a R-magnitude. Still, even at mag 16-16.5, it's the most distant object visible in 16"-18" scopes and I've seen it a few times in my 18" Starmaster. There are two mag 15/16 stars 1' SW and 1' SE that need to be distinguished.

#11 Feidb

Feidb

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1691
  • Joined: 09 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Nevada

Posted 29 March 2014 - 06:58 PM

Wouldn't bother. I'll leave that to the APers and those that just have to see it. I just did in the above photo. That's enough challenge for me! Nice catch. I haven't even seen 3C73, or whatever it's called. Not much into observing dots, but it's still fascinating just to know these things are out there. So much behind those tiny dots!

Oh, like the color also!


#12 Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

    Lagopus lagopus

  • *****
  • Posts: 3781
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2004
  • Loc: Arctic

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:19 PM

Nice photo. :bow: :cool: The light we are seeing is from 12 billion years old! That is 7 billion years older than our Solar System! APM 08279+5255 is likely a very old elliptical galaxy.

#13 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10250
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:18 PM

I know this object has come up several times previously, but as Timo mentioned the mag 15.2 usually quoted is *not* the visual magnitude, but rather a R-magnitude. Still, even at mag 16-16.5, it's the most distant object visible in 16"-18" scopes and I've seen it a few times in my 18" Starmaster. There are two mag 15/16 stars 1' SW and 1' SE that need to be distinguished.


I've come to accept this harsh reality and so with that evaporates my dreams of bagging it with my 8"!

Pete

#14 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 4374
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:23 PM

A possible target for your 8" is Q1634+706 in Draco. It is easy in a 10".

Clear skies, Alan

#15 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10250
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:55 PM

Thanks Alan!


Ok - here we go -

A website sais the image we see of it is 8.95 billion light years old but its actual distance is 13.37 light years. So we see it where it was 9 billion years ago even though in reality its much farther.

That said - then is ANY quasar seen at its true distance or are we just looking at some much closer location? The Ursa Major one is about 13 billion light years if I recall but if we are to move it to where its currently at it can't possibly as great a difference as the Draco quasar.

Here's the link:

http://astronutcase.... Q1634 706.html

Pete

#16 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 4374
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:24 PM

Thanks Alan!


Ok - here we go -

A website sais the image we see of it is 8.95 billion light years old but its actual distance is 13.37 light years. So we see it where it was 9 billion years ago even though in reality its much farther.

That said - then is ANY quasar seen at its true distance or are we just looking at some much closer location? The Ursa Major one is about 13 billion light years if I recall but if we are to move it to where its currently at it can't possibly as great a difference as the Draco quasar.

Here's the link:

http://astronutcase.... Q1634 706.html

Pete


Pete,

Well, that's not quite complete. When the light was emitted, the universe was smaller. Space expanded behind and in front of the light. The quasar was not 9 billion light years away then, but the light has traveled that far.

Clear skies, Alan

#17 Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Virginia, USA

Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:27 PM

Thanks Alan!


Ok - here we go -

A website sais the image we see of it is 8.95 billion light years old but its actual distance is 13.37 light years. So we see it where it was 9 billion years ago even though in reality its much farther.

That said - then is ANY quasar seen at its true distance or are we just looking at some much closer location? The Ursa Major one is about 13 billion light years if I recall but if we are to move it to where its currently at it can't possibly as great a difference as the Draco quasar.

Here's the link:

http://astronutcase.... Q1634 706.html

Pete


According to Hubble's law, the universe has expanded since the quasar's light was emitted, and a redshift is observed. Since light doesn't interact with itself, light waves expand as they travel through space.

What is redshift? It's the observed wavelength subtracted by the emitted wavelength, all divided by the observed wavelength. When you have a redshift value of 0, that's right here. When you have a redshift value of 1, that means the observed wavelength is twice as large as it was when it was emitted. For a redshift of 2, three times as large...etc.

Look back time:
- Is the numbers of years the light has been traveling to get to us
- Is NOT the distance to the quasar now (light years)
- Is NOT the distance to the quasar at time of emission (light years)

We have ways to calculate all three of these, but the last two are not as straightforward as the first.

-Nick Anderson

#18 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 4374
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 31 March 2014 - 02:04 PM

What's really cool is that APM 08279+5255 is now 23.6 billion light years away. (Your result may vary, depending on which parameters you select for our universe.)

Clear skies, Alan






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics