Most Distant Object in the Universe: Gamma Ray Burst GRB 090423

[lenney81]

I just wanted to let you know that your intro song is by a band called "Anberlin" and they are proclaimed christians. Not a knock on them. They are a fantastic band. Just thought you should know. lol

[thegeffc]

good work here

[alexasmithy]

brilliant video

[shellybirdy]

very interesting video thanks

[omgyskilla1234]

the univers was made by god lol jks ;)

[smuggecko]

Very enjoyable thank you

[thejameskan]

very interesting thanks

[TheSpikeystuff]

love the video man

[jaideep007bond]

no ones goin2 die its a grb

[KorrazonCold]

Collective unconscious positron in-wave fronts multiplying time enfolding at right-angle's forming+/-breaking at every point of space thus virtual pair's (Space) creation+/-annihilation in and out of existence forming square of the wave-medium. Space Time Gravitation have no separate existence from matter Virtual pair's wound up inbetween Neuron star's and within active cores of galaxies Matter is just space where it is very intense becoming+/-passing spatially extended standing-wave structures.

[KorrazonCold]

I'm "really" getting sick and tired of these big bang creationists telling lies. Rome was not built in a day, neither was the Earth or the Universe !!! (Stop feeding people garbage)

[Ecselsiour]

IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER!

[Arizonasheat]

so... ive learned that...well see i forgot cuhz im stoned....*LOl* LIKE!!

[sajakram1]

can jesus withstand a gamma ray burst

[XBAGREMX]

are we going to die???

[EaglesgotTALONS]

What epic music for it FIRING ITS LASER!

[frootloopsfan]

whats the name of the song on the very first seconds?

[asystole420]

Clearly this is actually a Non-Corporeal Alien Superweapon.

[shitbagster]

Thanks, just so you know I really enjoy this video also.

[shitbagster]

what is the music to this video?

[djb135]

@shitbagster Carmina Burana

[ispdni1234]

@valdejunquera Actually even if you were many light years away I doubt we'd feel the pain of death as there is simply so much energy we'd be pulverized. Comparable to sitting on a nuke the size of, say, the sun.

[jelen100]

something's wrong. If the universe was born in Big Bang, and after some 600 million years was created this beam of light, we should be now 13 billion light years away from the center of the universe (+- 600 million l.y.) and we know the universe itself is much bigger than this distance, so how got it so large if nothing is faster than light ?

[the81stviewer]

@jelen100 Mass and particles can't go faster than light. The thing is that space itself is moving faster than light. Still confusing I know.

[Danesomdahlitup]

0:58 IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZAAAAHHHHHHH~!!!!!!!

[concord327]

THis is a video about GAMMA RAY BURST what does that have to do with 911?

[Cxaxakluth]

You totally should've used the theme music from Benny Hill as a soundtrack to this. Of course that's just sense of humor talking lol.

[potpot41925]

HyperNova: KAMEHAME WAVE!!!!!!!!! Lolz

[nitrojuga]

@jimmyRRpage From my understanding, space-time actually is/was expanding faster than the speed of light(most likely due to dark energy), and it gets faster as it continues. The speed of light is a barrier placed by space-time, the only thing that can go faster than the speed of light is space-time itself.

[Paddyslippers]

this piece of music is: carl orff - carmina burana o fortuna

[merc3desah]

what music is this?

[Paddyslippers]

@merc3desah

carl orff - carmina burana o fortuna

[darkerzone]

What`s the name of the song starting 0:14 ???

[merdaporrenta]

@darkerzone

Era - The Mass

[darkerzone]

@merdaporrenta THANKS 

[jomill78]

yea the farthest object now is a gallaxy that had black holes clear the dust so we could see it its red shifted 8.6 as of jan 2011

[arma2able]

? hä ?



[owen217141]

feels ike star trek with the music

[gwendance]

Next time you should say the date of things happening because if you say "last week," someone might not know when last week is. You made this on April 13, 2009, but when I'm posting this it's December 29, 2010. So every "last week" is different.

[shkotay]

NGC 4621 to be exact. A fascinating picture. Black holes are indeed real :D

[shkotay]

Now here is something truly "god-like". A gamma-ray burst has energy second only to the Big Bang and would turn the earth into ash in about a quarter second. Also in one of Michio Kaku's lectures he shows a picture on an accretion disk at the centre of a galaxy, the first ever taken. The tiny centre dot of which is one light year across. The raging inferno of the accretion disk is hundreds of light years across. That is simply astounding. The universe is great beyond our knowing :D

[spacecoke]

it looks like a flower seeding the universe with energy

[canadianbacon007]

Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of fEphraim;

[angelcandles]

what is the name of this piece? (added audio)

[nebnubs]

there is no proof the big bang even happened.

[PoliMeim]

that nova just lost its virginity

[sushanalone]

i think the quazar and hypernovae bursts shown in the video are a bit misleading. quazars are not hypernovae. so is it a quazar GRB or a Hyper nova burst in this case?

[datafreak667]

IMA FIREN MAH LAZOR

[TheNoEvilMan777]

It's the hand of God! hahaha why not?

[sushanalone]

@TheNoEvilMan777 More like a dick of God fucking a galaxy in its supermassive blackhole (Quazar) =)

[GoldenDaffsterDuck]

yeah, common and more words... :) let the show begin.

[british123able]

ok so am thinking what if i put a hubble telescope at the same distance as this gamma ray burst, what would i see ??? . . . . . nothing?. . . . . more stars???

[Crush40thebest]

science is the best

[koekie1337]

that was Anberlin - Fin at the beginning

[TheLeomidas]

I'ma Firin' Mah Lazor

[Kenliero]

Yes, Universe does expand faster than the speed of light

[poochpoints]

If the universe is estimated at 13 billion years old or thereabouts, why would something be at its end life then and emit and go super nova? Wouldnt everything at that time be relatively young in age and too young to go super nova?

[kernell32bcn]

@poochpoints Not necesarily. Think that the same matter than the universe has today was in way less space so is probably that there were some super massive objects that collapsed making novas.

just google

are-black-holes-architects-of-­universe

and you'll find a really interesting article from discovermagazine (science and technology) about some super massive black holes of over a billion times the mass of our sun as far as 800 million years after the big bang

[littleBOOFboy]

wat song ois this its funky

[Acuraintegraman1]

man that blackhole was just like BOOM BOOOOM BOOOOOM!!!!! what CHAOTIC place.

[maxorx]

To contintue so are they wording this wrong and they mean the event happened 6.5 billion years ago that would give a travel time they would have the light come from a region that has traveled 13 billion light year from where we are cos overwise it donsent make logical sense being as time and space are 1 thing remember the thing that emitted the light has to get that far away from us in the first place unless you believe that big bang expansion inflated the uni to 90% in current size instantly

[kernell32bcn]

@maxorx Well, actually the universe can expand faster than speed of light. Relativity says mass can not travel faster than speed of light but space can expand as fast as he pleases.

Check "Metric expansion of space" in wikipedia

[doom2sgt]

a falcon punch on steroids thats all it is. lol

[kutubu1]

a gamma ray burst in the milky way should probably wipe out all life

[TheKarmak]

The Milky Way is 100.000 lightyears in diameter. A Gamma-Ray Burst farther then 6.000 lightyears from earth is considdered no longer a threath.

The Odd's of a GRB occuring in the Milkey Way Galaxy has been calculated to be less than 0.1%

Info from Discovery Channel: Known Universe.

[sacr3]

@TheKarmak Ture, but according to Michio Kaku, there is a "setup" of a GRB pointing directly at us, only 8000 light years away. Considering a GRB can emit what the sun emits over 10 billion years in just a few seconds, the amount of energy would have a high chance of damaging out solar system. Lets hope this doesn't happen

[yplay2]

i totally agree with you buts its only a human theory.

[eepruls]

Not exactly. A burst from within 100 light years would destroy Earth.

[flagship21]

what is name of this song???

[shitzoalc6v]

carmina burana

[Tofy710]

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living. Will they not then believe?

Quran sort Al-Anbiya verses 30

[kernell32bcn]

@Tofy710 wtf are you talking about? That was about 10 billion years before there were anything you could call "heavens and earth" (and if as heavens you don't mean the athmosphere but the cosmos then it should read heaven and earths, since there are lots of "earth" in this and other solar sistems. your book fail, science wins :-)

[maxorx]

forgive my limited understanding of this but how can this object only be seen now 13 bill years away surely it would take 13 bill year to get that far away then 13 bil years to reach us expanding space can account for some of this but still how did this obect get 13 bil years away in 0.7 bil year lol i know im missing a big piece of the puzzule here but still my brain hurts lol.

[ughzean]

it happened along time ago and the light is just reaching us in that the light your looking at has been traveling through space for over 13 billion years..so that hyper nova is long since gone or changed billions of years ago

[maxorx]

yes sure i filly understand that the light has been traveling for 13 billion years but what i dont understand is how we are only just seeing that light now .The light traveled for 13 billlion years BEFORE we see it so that would logicaly mean that either space is expending at near light speed or that light must need a lot more time than 0.7 billion years to get 13 billion light years away again i just dont understand (maybe the light was scattered by dust or lenced to slow it some how)

[ughzean]

yep :)

[BiggSassOfTheOV]

@maxorx what do you not understand? the reason we are just now seeing that light is because that is how long it has taken for the light to travel to us. when we look out into space, we are seeing the past, because it takes light time to travel to within our visibility. that is how big the universe is. the reason we see is because of light reflecting of objects back to our eyes. so that light has traveled all the way accross the universe and we are just now able to see it.

[maxorx]

@BiggSassOfTheOV ok 1 last time i must not be explaining this right i understand fully that the light has been travel through space and we are only just seeing it now thats fine whats not fine is that ,that light has taken 90% of the age of the universe to get to us so the region of space that that light left WAS 13 billion LYs away when it left (for us to see back 13 bill years) the uni is only 16 bill years old so 13 plus travel time 26 minus expansion (guess) 4 bill hmmm you see my proplem

[ConnorXV]

Bye

[ConnorXV]

Even though particles and light cannot escape black holes PAST the event horizon; as particles smash into eachother going into the black hole, they give off gamma ray flashes and being such high energy waves they can "outrun" the black hole's gravity but only while OUTSIDE the event horizon and so escape the pull. Cont.

[ConnorXV]

@ Garyshermer

Light is known as an electromagnetic wave of energy rather that a particle as that's how to best descirbe it. So think of light as "pure energy" as such and not photons or muons or whatever I dunno. Cont.

[mordagow]

light as we know it is the fastest thing in the universe.

however space expands faster.

this does not contradict einsteins theory or relativity

[markandrach]

@mordagow light is electro magnetic energy,along with gamma rays,x rays,ultra violet and radio waves.if an object travels faster than these energies it does go against einsteins theories

[jimmyRRpage]

Hahaha fair enough. I'll have to leave that to someone who knows more then Wikipedia tells them... :D

Hopefully someone will, though. Glad I could be of some help. :)

[jimmyRRpage]

I think what it's trying to say, basically, is that the rules that apply to all things within the Universe do not necessarily apply to the Universe itself.

I also think that's where the whole Quantum Sciences come in, although I could be (and probably am) wrong... :D

[jimmyRRpage]

The universe is 13 billion years old, but 93 billion light years (5.46700483 × 10^23 miles) in diameter. From wiki:

"It may seem impossible that two galaxies on opposite sides can be separated by 93 billion light years after only 13 billion years, since special relativity states that matter cannot be accelerated to exceed the speed of light in a localized region of space-time..."

cont...

[jimmyRRpage]

"... However, according to general relativity, space can expand with no intrinsic limit on its rate; thus, two galaxies can separate more quickly than the speed of light if the space between them grows. It is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite."

That talks about two galaxies being so far apart, but essentially answers your question...

[Eyesofgold9]

@jimmyRRpage 1st off, dont beleive everything wikipedia tells you, that information could of come from anywhere, and 2nd we dont know the exact size of the universe, we just know that its AT LEAST 93 billion lights years in diameter, because thats how far we can see.... past that is a mystery... and who's to say how old the universe is... no human was around 13 billion years ago...

[jimmyRRpage]

@Eyesofgold9 You don't have to have been there 13 or so billion years ago to know the Universe is that old. You just have to follow the evidence (redshift, speed-of-light, etc), kind of like how a detective solves a case.

Also, Wiki's scientific articles are some of the best-researched on that site. Don't trust what they're saying? Click on the provided sources.

[Eyesofgold9]

@jimmyRRpage well played sir.... but i still think wikipedia is full of lies lol, maybe not about this topic, but u do know..... ANYBODY can place information on that site right?

[jimmyRRpage]

@Eyesofgold9 Yes, but you do know that Wikipedia has rules and programs in place to ensure the veracity of its information, right? An article with no or inadequate sources will automatically be cited as such. Even Stephen Colbert's hijack took less than 24 hours to be corrected. Wikipedia may not be a good site to use as a cited source, but it is, at least, a trustworthy starting point.

[InnSewerAnts]

@jimmyRRpage I just replied to eyesofgold just thought I'd reply to you too :P.

Just to say agreed, personally if one is going to use an encyclopedia as a reference you impress me more with using wiki than showing me a commercial encyclopedia printed a few years ago you had in your bookcase. One of the reasons I like (English) wiki a lot is it usually has ample references linked to get you started if you really want to dig into something. (Dutch wiki on the other hand feels empty and incomplete)

[InnSewerAnts]

@Eyesofgold9 The trick is anyone can correct it. People that wilfully post information that can't be verified will lose the right to edit wiki over time.

You need to be able to reference what you place.

Wiki has it's own version of scientific peer review platform to keep the information in check. Periodically stories of bad editing come out, the difference with a commercial encyclopedia that would be hidden from you. (protecting ency's name etc) and you'd never know that something was ever wrong

[Eyesofgold9]

@InnSewerAnts interesting, thanks 4 clearing that up 4 me

[lampshade132]

@jimmyRRpage Yeah it doesnt make sense, but thats why dark matter/energy has been a hot topic, it doesnt make sense to anyone haha. All we know is the galaxies are accelerating outwards, thats why the age of the universe and the distance between objects is not a one-to-one ratio over time.

[CombatRocks]

@jimmyRRpage All thanks to inflation. But no-one has yet explained the mechanism behind inflation. It is a big mystery following a big bang!!

[jimmyRRpage]

@CombatRocks Hence the hypothesized existence of Dark Energy. It's the only model that really explains the reason why the universe is expanding faster and faster. I tend to think that the Dark Energy hypothesis is not entirely correct, but it's probably the closest we've got to explaining what's going on... at least right now...

[CombatRocks]

@jimmyRRpage I don't think there is any link between dark energy and inflation - not that I've hear as yet. Incidentally, it's not the only viable theory - M theory also explains the accelerating expansion of the universe via the multiverse idea. Gravity from external universes/dimensions can influence the mass in our universe resulting in an observed acceleration of the universe.

[jimmyRRpage]

@CombatRocks Truth be told, I like that idea a heck of a lot better than the Dark Energy idea. You know Brane Theory? I like the idea that two Membrane universe collided, causing an extreme flare in energy (so-called "Dark Energy"), more than we can imagine, which involved forces that allowed for the existence of matter, which eventually coalesced into our universe (and another on the other brane). The excitability of that energy causes the continued expansion.

[CombatRocks]

@jimmyRRpage Yes, brane theory is a part of M theory. Have you read Prof Green's book on the subject - it's excellent..

[jimmyRRpage]

@CombatRocks No I haven't. What's the title of the book. I would love to read it.

[CombatRocks]

@jimmyRRpage It is The Elegant Universe by Prof Brian Greene.

[jimmyRRpage]

@CombatRocks They hypothesize that such an expansion lasts perhaps a trillion years. We're only just over 13.7 billion years into our universe, so it's pretty young even on a finite time-scale of a trillion years.

[LACraig621]

@jimmyRRpage I like apples.

[sadoewe323]

@jimmyRRpage i dont know how you got 4 thumbs up with your bullshit, the universe cannot be mesured as noone knows if the universe is finite or infinte, also it is possible to exceed the speed of light, as everything within space time is moving at the speed of light, hence why the faster you travel the slower time travles because your adding movement to the speed which everything is moving, dont ever trust wikipedia

[jimmyRRpage]

@sadoewe323 First, we know the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), therefore it is, in fact, finite, at least into the past. We also know that it's expanding (that is, the space between two points is getting larger). Taking these two facts into accounts, it stand to reason that the universe is finite into the future as well.

[jimmyRRpage]

@sadoewe323 Second, I never said it *wasn't* possible to exceed the speed of light. It's not only probable, but happening, as the Universe is actually expanding faster than the speed of light. We human beings, however, can't exceed the speed of light because we don't have the technology to harness the amount of power needed, and I'm thinking it'll be a few thousand years or more before we come even close.

[TheShibo]

@jimmyRRpage No, it's actually impossible for anything to accelerate to the speed of light. There are plenty of easily found resources explaining how space expands faster than the speed of light (but nothing containing mass can move through space at the speed of light).

[jimmyRRpage]

@TheShibo Watch your terms. "Impossible" is a meaningless word. You are right, of course, that it is *hugely* improbable. I should note that when I say "break the light-speed barrier", I don't necessarily mean moving faster than light. Maybe we will "break the barrier" by finding, or creating, shortcuts across vast distances, like wormholes or such. I apologize, because it's a poor choice of words on my part.

[jimmyRRpage]

@sadoewe323 Third, I'm *really* getting sick and tired of saying this, but Wikipedia is a perfectly trustworthy *starting point* for information. Most articles (especially scientific ones) *cite their sources*, and you can go to those sources and see them for yourself. If you don't trust Wikipedia, just follow its sources. It's easy...

[Gamethroughs]

@jimmyRRpage Anyone can edit wikipedia.

[jimmyRRpage]

@Gamethroughs And they have their own version of peer review to ensure that the information posted to Wikipedia is accurate. That's why most Wikipedia articles *CITE THEIR SOURCES*.

It really boggles my mind how most people don't get this...

[Gamethroughs]

@jimmyRRpage *Sigh* I give up on humanity.

[jimmyRRpage]

@Gamethroughs What? Why?

I'm sorry, but because I recognize Wikipedia's usefulness as a STARTING POINT, you're giving up on humanity? I can think of billions of better reasons for doing that, like Creationism, Intelligent Design, the Middle East, Terry Jones, Glenn Beck, Fox News, the Ivory Coast, Libya, Rush Limbaugh, Astrology, Homeopathy, Moon-landing deniers, 9/11-truthers... there are so many reasons.

My recognition of Wiki's usefulness is not one of those reasons...

[Rel7eGaDe]

@jimmyRRpage can you explain why world trade 7 collapsed?

[jimmyRRpage]

@Rel7eGaDe Popular Mechanics [dot] Com -> search for "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center" -> Click on "WTC 7 Collapse"

And stop being paranoid. They are *not* out to get you.

[Rel7eGaDe]

@jimmyRRpage lol all they do is tell the exact opposite of what conspiracy theorist claim, also

"numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet." are you kidding me?

firefighters and poeple working inside the building heard and saw the lobby totally destroyed and felt the bomb push them up... "And stop being paranoid. They are *not* out to get you." where the fuck are you getting that from?

[chrisofnottingham]

@Rel7eGaDe "can you explain why world trade 7 collapsed?"

Errm, perhaps the debris of two collapsing WTCs landing on it?

The thing I don't get about all you truthers is; If it was an inside job framed to look like terrorists, why did they bother with the planes? The WTC had already been the target of previous genuine bomb attacks, so there wouldn't have been a problem selling that story.

Vids of the collapse starting with an inward buckle watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0 watch?v=qYLbfkxjYYc

[Rel7eGaDe]

@chrisofnottingham lmao, learn your facts, in the history of the united states only 3 building collapsed caused by planes hitting them, all the same day, and 1 of them didnt even get hit by a plane, yup you guessed it 9/11, and one of them didnt even get hit by a plane, wtc7debris from the 2 towers wont be enough to get a building down, cmon man... it got " pulled " they destroyed it.. its that simple, watch the videos of the lobby totally destroyed by a bomb ( as withness describes it )

[chrisofnottingham]

@Rel7eGaDe "learn your facts...wtc7debris from the 2 towers wont be enough to get a building down"

The live reports from near WTC7 stated that it looked like it might collapse due to extensive impact damage by the falling towers. This was before it did collapse. Oh, I forgot, those reporters are part of the conspiracy too.

Do you have any idea of the time involved, the open access required and how invisible it isn't, when people deliberately demolish a building with explosives?

[Rel7eGaDe]

@chrisofnottingham listen im not going to spend too much time trying to convince you about 9/11, since you clearly made your mind on the question, but if you want, take the time to look at these

watch?v=v8jeodwwaKg&feature=re­lated

[chrisofnottingham]

@Rel7eGaDe I never really had much truck with any of the twin tower conspiracies due to their implausibility and lack of convincing evidence. However, I was taken aback by the claim that WTC7 was reported collapsed before it fell (true). I had never even paid attention to WTC7 before that.

I then spent quite a bit of time investigating with an open mind. Initially it all looked very suspicious but eventually everything made sense and had very boring mundane explanations. Now I'm closed minded.

[Rel7eGaDe]

@chrisofnottingham idk everything smells fishy, just the fact that the bush family knew the bin ladens, they provide so many dollars for his company the carlile group or what ever its called, and the fact that they tried to bomb the towers a couple years before, the fact that the guy paid a ridicule amount for the towers, and claimed an insane amount on the insurance when the towers got " attacked " .. anyway have a nice day :)

[chrisofnottingham]

@Rel7eGaDe I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few skeletons in the cupboard with regard to Bush / Bin Laden / Big Business and the WTC but the actual 9/11 conspiracies just don't make any sense to me.

Much like the moon landing hoaxers, the evidence seems to mainly consist of questions (Why can't you see any stars cw How come the steel gave way?) which all have really simple answers but because they are outside of normal experience some people won't accept that their intuition is wrong.

[Rel7eGaDe]

@chrisofnottingham yeah, i see what you mean, the thing that made me go on the conspiracy theorist, is the freefall of wtc7, if a normal collapse due to fire happens (never happened in the history of US, only on 9/11) but if it happens, the rate at which the building falls would be less than freefall, since theres alot of friction / restreint from the lower floors, with wtc7 its exactly on the freefall rate, something like 9.78, 0.02 from freefall

[chrisofnottingham]

@Rel7eGaDe "if a normal collapse due to fire happens (never happened in the history of US, only on 9/11) but if it happens, the rate at which the building falls would be less than freefall...with wtc7 its exactly on the freefall rate"

See my prev:

"really simple answers but...they are outside of normal experience"

"the debris of two collapsing WTCs landing on it" - this is not normal.

[holeano]

@jimmyRRpage when I saw this video I started to asking myself the same... so based on the facts it apears that the light speed barrier was broken or maybe this is an indication that there wasn't a big bang at all...

my brain just melted xD

[Gamethroughs]

@jimmyRRpage It is not true, the universe isn't that old.

[jimmyRRpage]

@Gamethroughs Oh really? Then how old is it? 6,000 years old? 10,000 years old?

Join us in the 21st century. We pretty much know how old the universe is: 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years old, and it's mostly thanks to the WMAP that we know this.

map[dot]gsfc[dot]nasa[dot]gov/­universe/uni_age.html

[Gamethroughs]

@jimmyRRpage It is around 10,000 and under.

[jimmyRRpage]

@Gamethroughs And your evidence for that is?...

[Gamethroughs]

@jimmyRRpage Bible.

[Gamethroughs]

@jimmyRRpage Alright, what would you like me to prove first?

[jimmyRRpage]

@Gamethroughs Genesis. Specifically Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden.

[metalgta4xcon]

What the fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[garyshermer]

Isn't a gamma ray a particle? How can a particle escape a black hole?

[BishopBui]

cool video

[1RadicalOne]

I warn you, the owner of the copyrights to this music is vigilant...I've seen six videos go down because of it.

[StaticJolts]

@1RadicalOne They use this song as an opening theme in Star Trek Klingon Academy pc game

[1RadicalOne]

The game probably bought the rights. This uploader did not.

[bensbaker]

Brilliant. Thanks for posting this up!

[GratuitousSacrifice]

Are you sure this light was created by an hypernova?

[ChuckyJesus666]

Carmina Banana: The Atheists' Nightmare... j/k

Seriously...great music choice. I'm wondering though, although this happened early in the universe's history, wouldn't it be more accurate to say this is the oldest object we can see, as the light left this object some 13 billion years ago?

[CommonReason]

Because it is young. Don't forget that it took ~13 billion years for the light to reach us.

I guess we're also looking at it from 2 perspectives: young universe = young object; and happened long time ago = old.

[ChuckyJesus666]

Yeah, exactly, the image we see is of the young object, but by now, it's quite old.