<p>About 13.1 billion light years. </p>

<p>The z8 GND 5296 Galaxy mentioned in the <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/105694/taking-measure-a-new-most-distant-galaxy/" rel="nofollow">article</a> linked by TildalWave, mere 700 millions years old (after Big Bang) would be the mentioned distance from us for the light to reach us at indicated speed, considering the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe" rel="nofollow">13.798</a> bln years old universe. As we push technological barriers, we keep finding more distant objects.</p>

<p>The age of the universe is the hard limit in light years of distance of any observable object - there was nothing to emit light more than 13.798 bln years ago, or respectively, <strike>visible from more than 13.798 bln light years away.</strike> visible from distance that what was 13.798 bln light years 13.798 bln years ago - or, after adjusting for universe expansion over that time, currently <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe" rel="nofollow">46.6 billion light years away</a>.</p>

<p>Of course, as RhysW mentions, this limit changes over time as the universe ages and grows. The exact rate of growth is <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/07/the-universe-is-expanding-at-742-kmsecmpc/" rel="nofollow">74.2km/sec per megaparsec</a>, or about 0.000000007% per year. I'd say, comparing to our life and current technological progress, an insignificant factor.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-24T15:03:09.657Z
@RhysW: Yes, the rate is not constant. But the rate of change of that rate (the second differential) is even smaller and even more negligible. There is another hard limit lowering the 13.798 bln by roughly 150mln. though: first stars formed roughly 150mln years after beginning of universe. There will be nothing visible to be observed earlier/further, no bodies emitting light or radiation.
SF.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-24T11:13:15.080Z
2013-10-24T22:01:45.560Z
2013-10-24T22:01:45.560Z
SF.
<p>There are few objects that might have even higher redshift. Googling I've found three accepted papers:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>two are about a $z\approx10$ galaxy. One published in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4263" rel="nofollow">Nature</a> and the other one in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3105" rel="nofollow">Astrophysics Journal Letters</a></p></li>
<li><p>is about a strong lensed candidate at $z\approx11$ published on <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3663" rel="nofollow">Astrophysical Journal</a></p></li>
</ol>

<p>There are also few gamma ray burst associated with objects at large redshift. <a href="http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grbgen.html" rel="nofollow">This database</a> containts:</p>

<ul>
<li>z=8.26 <a href="http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grb090423.html" rel="nofollow">GRB090423</a></li>
<li>z=9.2 <a href="http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grb090429B.html" rel="nofollow">GRB090429B</a>. The redshift if photometric, which means that the error on the determination is likely large </li>
</ul>

<p>There might be few other around</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-25T21:34:14.137Z
2013-10-25T21:34:14.137Z
Francesco Montesano
<p>My question is about furthest object in the observable universe except <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background">Сosmic microwave background</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-24T06:11:18.603Z
[This is yesterday's article on Universe Today](http://www.universetoday.com/105694/taking-measure-a-new-most-distant-galaxy/) that is directly related and straight from the start discusses how short-lived is our definition of _"the furthest observable Universe"_. ;)
TildalWave
<cosmology>
What is the furthest object in the observable universe?
bellicose
# What is the furthest object in the observable universe?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-23)

My question is about furthest object in the observable universe except [Сosmic microwave background](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background).

**Tags:** cosmology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: [This is yesterday's article on Universe Today](http://www.universetoday.com/105694/taking-measure-a-new-most-distant-galaxy/) that is directly related and straight from the start discusses how short-lived is our definition of _"the furthest observable Universe"_. ;)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-10-24. Score: 4

About 13.1 billion light years.

The z8 GND 5296 Galaxy mentioned in the [article](http://www.universetoday.com/105694/taking-measure-a-new-most-distant-galaxy/) linked by username_1, mere 700 millions years old (after Big Bang) would be the mentioned distance from us for the light to reach us at indicated speed, considering the [13.798](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe) bln years old universe. As we push technological barriers, we keep finding more distant objects.

The age of the universe is the hard limit in light years of distance of any observable object - there was nothing to emit light more than 13.798 bln years ago, or respectively, visible from more than 13.798 bln light years away. visible from distance that what was 13.798 bln light years 13.798 bln years ago - or, after adjusting for universe expansion over that time, currently [46.6 billion light years away](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe).

Of course, as RhysW mentions, this limit changes over time as the universe ages and grows. The exact rate of growth is [74.2km/sec per megaparsec](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/07/the-universe-is-expanding-at-742-kmsecmpc/), or about 0.000000007% per year. I'd say, comparing to our life and current technological progress, an insignificant factor.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: @RhysW: Yes, the rate is not constant. But the rate of change of that rate (the second differential) is even smaller and even more negligible. There is another hard limit lowering the 13.798 bln by roughly 150mln. though: first stars formed roughly 150mln years after beginning of universe. There will be nothing visible to be observed earlier/further, no bodies emitting light or radiation.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-10-25. Score: 4

There are few objects that might have even higher redshift. Googling I've found three accepted papers:

1. two are about a $z\approx10$ galaxy. One published in [Nature](http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.4263) and the other one in [Astrophysics Journal Letters](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3105)
2. is about a strong lensed candidate at $z\approx11$ published on [Astrophysical Journal](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3663)

There are also few gamma ray burst associated with objects at large redshift. [This database](http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grbgen.html) containts:

* z=8.26 [GRB090423](http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grb090423.html)
* z=9.2 [GRB090429B](http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grb090429B.html). The redshift if photometric, which means that the error on the determination is likely large

There might be few other around


---

