Jump to content

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}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (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]

[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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

[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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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]

JWST-Era High-Distance Objects

[edit]

As mentioned in a previous discussion from 2012, the future did in fact yield a significant number of high-z candidates, especially those coming in from JWST. As of 5-30-2024, the current recordholder for most distant spectroscopically confirmed galaxy is JADES-GS-z14-0 at z=14.32. Source is here. We will need a more standardized way to ensure this list is kept up to date as confirmations come out. 50.222.185.65 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

when observed/discovered?

[edit]

I came here after searching to find "when we knew what we knew" about the most distant objects, like "what was the most distant object in the 1930's" type of thing, and the search gave me this page. So when I read the lede, "This article documents the most distant astronomical objects discovered and verified so far, and the time periods in which they were so classified", I expected to find what time periods in which they were so classified, however I guess I had the wrong idea about what time periods we're talking about, and how such classification is made. Maybe the lede should say "what time periods into which they were classified? 187.147.156.50 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main image replaced with JADES-GS-z14-0.

[edit]

Currently, the main image is of JADES-GS-z13-0 is labelled as being "the most distant galaxy". This does not agree with the values in the article's table, or with the description of the JWST image found here: JADES-GS-z14-0. Dated 30 May 2024, it says "One such galaxy, JADES-GS-z14-0 (shown in the pullout), was determined to be at a redshift of 14.32 (+0.08/-0.20), making it the current record-holder for the most distant known galaxy."

So I have edited the 'Annotated Full Res (For Display), 12407 X 12121, PNG' download to show the image of just the galaxy at 750 x 750px (1.7 MB) and will replace the current, but outdated image. This will keep the article up to date and in agreement with its content. Richard Nowell (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why why why….

[edit]

Why are no timely telescopes named after famous women astronomers……????? 173.246.140.223 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New most distant galaxy: MoM-z14

[edit]

JWST observed a new galaxy, named MoM-z14, on April 16, 2025, at a redshift of 14.44, about 280 million years after the Big Bang, making it the most distant source confirmed by spectroscopy to date. The prism spectrum has several UV emission lines: C IV, CII], NIV]λ1487 Å, NIII and He II+OIII]. Reference: arXiv:2505.11263v1 [astro-ph.GA] 16 May 2025 2025 05 19 - Naidu, Rohan P., et al. - The Mirage or Miracle Survey. A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at zspec = 14.44 Gilles courtemanche (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be too soon for the study to be used as a reference? It is still in preprint and so WP:ARXIV applies. For instance, the study Pushing JWST to the extremes: search and scrutiny of bright galaxy candidates at z≃15-30 (Castellano et al. 2025) has nine candidates with redshifts 15 ≤ z ≤ 20 but is still in preprint and so is not really elligible to be used as a reference. Within it, CEERS_15937 is found to have a redshift of 17.2. Perhaps that is the new most distant galaxy? Richard Nowell (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I quite unterstand your interogation as HD1 was to quickly announced in 2022 as the most distant galaxy at z13.27 with a tentative line at 237.8 Ghz with ALMA and finaly had a zspec of only 4.0 with JWST.
But for me, there is a huge diffence between galaxies photometric redshifts (zphot) as in the study of Castellano et al. 2025 and a JWST spectroscopic redshift (zspec) in Rohan P. Naidu et al. study, based not only on the Lyman-α break of MoM-z14 (zspec 14.42) but also on the detection of five UV emission lines (N IV]λ1487 Å, CIVλ1548, 1551 Å, CIII]λ1907, 1909 Å and He IIλ1640 Å + OIII]λ1661, 1666 Å = zspec 14.44). But we can wait the extremely efficient ALMA spectral scan follow-up for [O III]88μm and [C II]158μm as it was made for JADES-GS-z14-0, with a redshift ajusted from zspec = 14.32 to zspec = 14.1793.
And for the moment, as it is indicated in the Castellano study, CEERS_15937 might be also a low redshift interpoler at z 4.6. Only a spectrocopy of this candidate will determine is correct redshift. If you go that way, the most distant might be midis-z25-1 of the study " The rise of the galactic empire: luminosity functions at z ∼ 17 and z ∼ 25 estimated with the MIDIS+NGDEEP ultra-deep JWST/NIRCam dataset " (Perez-Gonzalez, Pablo G., et al.) at zphot 25.7.
Sincerely yours, Gilles C. 2A01:CB04:11B5:F300:1D1F:CFB8:8921:640 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your reply. My question is about whether WP:ARXIV applies, which it obviously does. It is not about the scientific content of the study which seems very robust, but rather the general principle that preprints shouldn't be used as references. Studies can spend a lot of time in arXiv: for instance RUBIES: A complete census of the bright and red distant Universe with JWST/NIRSpec (de Graaf et al. 2025) was submitted in September 2024 and was finally published in May 2025. No-one disputes its scientific credentials, but it had to work its way through peer review. My postings are about the general principle that WP uses published material. Why not wait a few weeks? Richard Nowell (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you. I Understand. 2A01:CB04:11B5:F300:FDA6:A31D:6277:C1D1 (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redshift of GHZ2/GLASS-z12

[edit]

The redshift of the galaxy GHZ2/GLASS-z12 is not z = 12.177 but z= 12.34 in the latest study of Marco Castellano et al. "JWST NIRSpec Spectroscopy of the Remarkable Bright Galaxy GHZ2/GLASS-z12 at Redshift 12.34 " published in The Astrophysical Journal, 972:143 (15pp), 2024 September 10. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad5f88, making it the ninth more distant galaxy today after (1) MoM-z14 (2) JADES-GS-z14-0 (3) JADES-GS-z14-1 (4) JADES-GS-z13-0 (5) UNCOVER-z13 (6) JADES-GS-z13-1-LA (Witstok, J., et al.) (7) JADES-GS-z12-0 and (8) UNCOVER-z12.

This galaxy has been observed in October 2023 by the James Webb Space Telescope with both NIRSpec and MIRI spectrographs, making it the most distant galaxy (zspec = 12.342±0.009 – 360 Myr) with complete spectroscopic coverage from rest-frame UV to optical. It is identified as a strong C IV λ1549 emitter with many detected emission lines (N IV], He II, O III], N III], C III], [O II], [Ne III], [O III], and Hα), including the first detection in a high-redshift object of the O III Bowen fluorescence line at 3133 Å rest-frame. Gilles courtemanche (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UDFj-39546284 - JADES-GS-z11-0 and JADES-GS- z10-0

[edit]

In the preprint version of the study of Brant Robertson " Identification and properties of intense star-forming galaxies at redshifts z>10 " it is mentionned that "Of the HST-discovered galaxies, our object JADES-GS+53.16476-27.77463 (JADES-GS-z11-0) is notably also known as UDFj-39546284. " and that "The final HST-selected object (JADESGS-z10-0, originally known as UDFj-38116243; ref. 38) is now spectroscopically confirmed by ref. 37 to lie at redshift 𝑧 = 10.38." I have not access to the print study. Is it or not an error, because in the list of the most distant astronomical objects UDFj-39546284 is mentionned two times. The first time alone, the second time it is linked with JADES-GS-z10-0 and not with JADES-GS-z11-0, who is not mentionned. Where is the truth ? Gilles courtemanche (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as -
Objects discovered as part of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Survey (UDF):
i) JADES-GS+53.1648-27.7746 (JADES-GS-z11-0) (UDFj-39546284) 𝑧 = 11.58, which has its own WP article.
ii) JADES-GS-z10.0 (UDFj-38116243) 𝑧 = 10.38, is I believe in SIMBAD UDFj-38116243. (JADES-GS+53.15884-27.77349 JADES-GS-z10-0 in Robertson study).

I think the original redshift is from A candidate redshift z ~10 galaxy and rapid changes in that population at an age of 500 Myr but as it is not an open study that I can read I can't be sure. So the entry in this article's list for the galaxy at z = 10.38 is wrong and should be changed to UDFj-38116243. I hope this goes some way to answering your query. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed reference in table and gave original identifier from its first mention in a study [BIL2011] (Bouwens+Illengworth+Labbe+, 2011) from this page BIL2011. I think this is now right and apologies for misleading information that was clearly wrong. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me the List of the most distant astronomical objects in English is the reference version of WK. Thanks for all. I learn a lot from you. Gilles courtemanche (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_most_distant_astronomical_objects&oldid=1293766896"