<p>It depends. In some areas, far-away stuff is obscured by obstacles in the foreground. In other places, we can see almost all the way to the earliest (and furthest-away) galaxies, like in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hubble Deep Field</a> image: </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/NNPEv.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/NNPEv.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>The very earliest objects have so much redshift they disappear out of view for visible-light telescopes. That's where the <a href="https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">JWST</a> comes in: because it's an infrared telescope, it can capture objects that have too much redshift to be visible in a visible-light telescope. </p>

<p>Advances help us see more in other ways too. Gaia data <a href="http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/11/gaia-ghost" rel="nofollow noreferrer">revealed some small nearby galaxies</a> which are mostly obscured by our own galaxy. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-16T13:23:45.363Z
2019-04-16T13:59:45.270Z
2019-04-16T13:59:45.270Z
Hobbes
<p>Is there a limit in which the mass in space obscure the ability to detect anything farther even as technology progresses?</p>

<p>Related:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/30454/can-the-range-of-the-observable-universe-be-extended-through-an-intermediary">Can the range of the observable universe be extended through an intermediary?</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/496/which-galaxy-is-receding-from-the-milky-way-the-fastest-what-is-known-of-the-me">Which galaxy is receding from the Milky Way the fastest? What is known of the mechanism behind its recession?</a></p></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-15T10:58:46.687Z
Partially answered in https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/496/which-galaxy-is-receding-from-the-milky-way-the-fastest-what-is-known-of-the-me
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-15T19:43:19.770Z
Well, we can see the CBR (albeit redshifted) so we can see back to when the universe went from opaque to clear.
zeta-band
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-15T21:37:31.643Z
Which means the answer is yes-- the matter that was the source of the CBR obscures out ability to directly see anything farther away or further back in time.  We will never see its light, with any technology, but we can model it based on what we do see, or maybe we will someday see neutrinos or gravitational waves from further back.  I wouldn't count on it.
Ken G
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-16T00:32:24.787Z
And of course further back in time than the source of the CMB, there's not much to see anyway, apart from very uniform plasma.
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-16T16:24:27.783Z
@KenG That *is* the answer.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-29T16:33:57.400Z
Perhaps relevant: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/44989/is-it-nonsense-to-even-talk-about-objects-outside-the-observable-universe-not/44991#44991
Daddy Kropotkin
<astrophysics><distances><radio-astronomy><identify-this-object><weak-lensing>
What is the farthest we can see into the universe?
Muze
# What is the farthest we can see into the universe?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-15)

Is there a limit in which the mass in space obscure the ability to detect anything farther even as technology progresses?

Related:

* [Can the range of the observable universe be extended through an intermediary?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/30454/can-the-range-of-the-observable-universe-be-extended-through-an-intermediary)
* [Which galaxy is receding from the Milky Way the fastest? What is known of the mechanism behind its recession?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/496/which-galaxy-is-receding-from-the-milky-way-the-fastest-what-is-known-of-the-me)

**Tags:** astrophysics, distances, radio-astronomy, identify-this-object, weak-lensing
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Partially answered in https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/496/which-galaxy-is-receding-from-the-milky-way-the-fastest-what-is-known-of-the-me  
> **username_2**: Well, we can see the CBR (albeit redshifted) so we can see back to when the universe went from opaque to clear.  
> **username_3**: Which means the answer is yes-- the matter that was the source of the CBR obscures out ability to directly see anything farther away or further back in time.  We will never see its light, with any technology, but we can model it based on what we do see, or maybe we will someday see neutrinos or gravitational waves from further back.  I wouldn't count on it.  
> **username_4**: And of course further back in time than the source of the CMB, there's not much to see anyway, apart from very uniform plasma.  
> **username_1**: @KenG That *is* the answer.  
> **username_5**: Perhaps relevant: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/44989/is-it-nonsense-to-even-talk-about-objects-outside-the-observable-universe-not/44991#44991  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2019-04-16. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

It depends. In some areas, far-away stuff is obscured by obstacles in the foreground. In other places, we can see almost all the way to the earliest (and furthest-away) galaxies, like in the [Hubble Deep Field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field) image:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/NNPEv.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/NNPEv.jpg)

The very earliest objects have so much redshift they disappear out of view for visible-light telescopes. That's where the [JWST](https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/) comes in: because it's an infrared telescope, it can capture objects that have too much redshift to be visible in a visible-light telescope.

Advances help us see more in other ways too. Gaia data [revealed some small nearby galaxies](http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/11/gaia-ghost) which are mostly obscured by our own galaxy.


---

