3 ms·

I'm a little confused - the article says it's 2.2 billion light years away yet the expectation is that it would be a very immature galaxy. Wouldn't it have had

by jgh 12y ago

I'm a little confused - the article says it's 2.2 billion light years away yet the expectation is that it would be a very immature galaxy. Wouldn't it have had ~11.6 billion years to become a more mature galaxy before the light we're looking at left? The Earth is older than the light from that galaxy. So why the surprise at its apparent maturity? Edit: to answer my own question the galaxy cluster that's doing the magnifying is 2.2 billion light years away. It took some googling to figure that one out!

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
civilian 12y ago
> This galaxy is so distant that it would have been invisible without the gravitational lensing effects of a large galaxy cluster called Abell 1689, located nearly 2.2 billion light years away in the constellation Virgo. Straight from the article. :)
- jgh 12y ago
  Yes, I see now that I was only half paying attention to the article and skipped a bunch of words ;)