text:
Gravitational lens magnifies earliest galaxy yet seen
Small galaxy was producing stars only 425 million years after the Big Bang.
John Timmer - Nov 17, 2012 6:45 pm UTC
The contours of the gravitational lens (colored lines) along with the three images of the distant background galaxy (JD1-3).
From: CLASH: Three Strongly Lensed Images of a Candidate z ~ 11 Galaxy, Dan Coe et. al.
The Universe's first galaxies played a key role in shaping the environment in which we now find ourselves. They fostered the formation of the first stars, which died in spectacular explosions that enabled a new generation of smaller stars, orbited by rockier planets. And the galaxies themselves merged and grew, forming the large galaxies and clusters that populate the Universe today. But, despite their critical role in shaping the Universe, we've never actually been able to see one of them.
Slowly, that's changing. The Hubble Deep Field exposures have helped us spot galaxies from the Universe's early days. But now, a special Hubble project has used an intervening cluster of galaxies as a lens to spot what appears to be the most distant galaxy ever imaged, one that dates from just 425 million years after the Big Bang.
Since it takes light time to reach us from distant corners of the Universe, the further you look, the older the objects you see. The wavelength of the light also gets shifted towards the red by the expansion of the Universe, which stretches it out as it travels. As you get closer to the Big Bang, light that started out in the UV end of the spectrum gets pushed deeper and deeper into the infrared. To make these galaxies even harder to spot, the extreme distance means that very few photons actually make their way to Earth, so these objects are incredibly dim.
So, to spot the most distant galaxies, the Hubble team searched for objects that weren't visible in shorter wavelengths, but did appear at longer wavelengths. To handle the dimness problem, the authors pointed the Hubble at large galaxy clusters, which have enough mass to act as a gravitational lens. (The project is called CLASH, for Cluster Lensing and Supernova survey with Hubble.)
With the Hubble pointed at the galaxy cluster MACSJ0647.7+7015, they hit the jackpot: three distinct objects that only appeared in images taken with the telescope's two deepest infrared filters. After mapping the distribution of matter (dark and otherwise) in the foreground cluster, they were able to ascertain that all three were images of the same background object, which they termed MACS0647-JD. The foreground galaxy cluster magnified the object by factors of 8x, 7x, and 2x.
But was it an early galaxy, or simply an infrared-bright object? The team behind the discovery used the Spitzer telescope to confirm that the objects were dim throughout the infrared; the Hubble hadn't simply caught the tail end of the light from a bright infrared object. An unusual aspect of gravitational lenses also helped them rule out any transient events. In addition to providing different levels of magnification, the light paths for each of the three images take different amounts of time to reach the Earth. As a result, the difference in time between some of the images is about 50 years, long enough that a transient event would have changed in character.
With a distant galaxy being the most likely candidate, the researchers estimated its likely properties. Based on the red shift, the galaxy appeared to have been emitting light when the Universe was only 425 million years old. The galaxy is also tiny (relatively speaking), at only 600 light years across, and about 108 to 109 times the mass of the Sun. The Milky Way is 250 times larger in size, and at least 100 times more massive. This provides strong support to most models of galaxy evolution, which suggest that multiple rounds of mergers took place to build the massive galaxies we see around us today.
The authors can't say much more than that at this resolution, but they are already hoping that the James Webb telescope takes a closer look at it whenever it finally gets to orbit.
The Astrophysical Journal, 2012. DOI: Not yet available.
fjpoblam Ars Scholae Palatinae
I guess what's mind-blowing to me is to think all three are images of the same thing. Exposes my math ignorance, among other things...
harold31415 Ars Praetorian
Why is that 8 in "about 10_8 to 10^9 times" subscript?
edit: nevermind, it converted to superscript just as I posted
abridge683 Ars Centurion
I would love to know the techniques used to determine which blobs are all the same image.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM Ars Tribunus Militum
This is so neat for cosmology and astrobiology both!
Early stars, increasing the number and lifetime of biospheres. And leading up to a promise to elucidate the characteristics of the first stars, something that wasn't assured by any means.
abridge683 wrote:
After mapping the distribution of matter (dark and otherwise) in the foreground cluster, they were able to ascertain that all three were images of the same background object,
In general they have to model the gravitational lensing of the foregrund lens, and likely fit it with a best model of the lensed objects and their locations.
And of course they check the spectra and magnitude of the lensed objects:
The team behind the discovery used the Spitzer telescope to confirm that the objects were dim throughout the infrared; the Hubble hadn't simply caught the tail end of the light from a bright infrared object. ... In addition to providing different levels of magnification, ...
Hopefully when the paper comes up one can check on what they did specifically this time.
xwindowsjunkie Ars Scholae Palatinae
The fact that caught my attention is that the differences in time of the images! 50 Years apart, WOW! Now that takes the cake for proving or at the very least demo'ing special relativity.
At the very least interstellar navigation gets REALLY interesting. How do you know that the star you're looking at hasn't moved or is being "pushed out of position" by a hidden massive black hole?
Technoid.se Ars Centurion
If they ever get the JW telescope into space its gonna be like christmas all year around for astronomers
baloroth Ars Scholae Palatinae
xwindowsjunkie wrote:
Actually has nothing to do with special relativity and all to do with basic optics. The various images all take different paths, which means different lengths and therefore different times to travel. Granted, the scale involved makes that difference enormous, but the same happens with all lenses, it just isn't (usually) noticeable (although you can make it so using interferometry).
baloroth wrote:
Actually, it has quite a bit to do with relativity, by demonstrating the gravitational effect on light and at the same time endorsing the speed of light as a constant (once you can determine the distance each image travelled to get to the Hubble).
It's good to hear that astronomers are resolving their problems.
Mydrrin Ars Tribunus Militum et Subscriptor
Quick question that has puzzled me for a long time. Star near the Big Bang time wise gives off light 12.5 billions years later we see it. Not sure how it works, we are not travelling at near the speed of light.
Logically to me if something gave off light 445 million years after the Big Bang, it's light would pass us a maximum of (expansion speed multiplied by 445 million years times two and add the expansion speed times 445 million years for drift since then). Even if my numbers are off by a few factors it still doesn't make sense to me. It has long puzzled me.
Malth Ars Scholae Palatinae
Mydrrin wrote:
I think it's just due to the expansion of space. We aren't traveling at the speed of light, but the expansion of space can cause the distance between 2 distant objects to increase at an arbitrary rate.
From elsewhere, I see this has a redshift of about 11, so when it formed it was actually relatively close, but the expansion of space has stretched the light out enough so that's its only just now reaching us.
It's kind of confusing to me too, maybe this will help: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/class/whi ... cones.html
edit: This also makes me wonder if this is the most distant galaxy we've observed, or just the oldest? Or both?
Dr. Jay Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius et Subscriptor
There's actually a software package that will take an image like that, analyze the background signals from it, determine which are likely to be from the same source, and then reconstruct the likely distribution of mass that would cause that sort of lensing. You run it without the three suspected images, get the mass distribution, and then see if that distribution can cause the sort of lensing required for the three images to be the same source. You also run it with the three images, and see if their presence changes the results at all.
At least, that's my reading of that section of the paper.
Postulator wrote:
That's general relativity, not special, the constant speed of light in a vacuum is independent of special relativity. Everyone in physics has always agreed that the same observer (in this case us) would see 2 effectively parallel light waves travel at the same speed, relativity is only required for transitioning between multiple reference frames. And Newtonian physics also stated light should be bent by gravity, the amount is just different from the bending in general relativity (or in other words without relativity we would likely still see the galaxy from several different points in time, just in a different apparent location and with slightly different times).
Well, the universe's expansion isn't constant over time, it's slowed down tremendously since the early universe. Even if it is still expanding at the speed of light (for example), the apparent expansion is considerably less now than it was then because the universe is so much larger, expansion would go as "speed of expansion/size of universe". In the first second, that is infinite (compared to the zero point), after 2 seconds it is double what it was at one, 3 it is only 1.5x what it was at 2 seconds, so on and so forth (note: I'm assuming the base rate is itself constant... it isn't, either). Keep in mind also that the expansion is spherical, so two objects close to one another will travel apart much much slower than two objects on opposite sides of the "explosion".
Imagine the "edge" of the universe is expanding in every direction equally at exactly 1/2 the speed of light, spherically from a point of origin. Now, an object on the very outside will be able to see an object in the exact middle as it was (total time of the universe)/2 ago (the distance will be (speed of expansion)*time, which is 1/2 (speed of light)*time). 2 objects on exact opposite sides of the universe would see light from each other that is the exact age of the universe (distance between them is twice the distance between the outer edge and midpoint, which is exactly the distance light would travel in that exact same time. Note it will be so far red-shifted the light would probably be completely undetectable). Any other two arbitrary points will be visible to each other at an age similarly proportional to their distance.
That's why we can still "see" the very very early universe: the background cosmic microwave radiation is basically a short while after the initial "bang" spread out over the whole universe. We can't see the initial bang because all the energy emitted was re-absorbed, thanks to how full with matter the universe was. We can only see after it cooled enough to condense into matter in it's present state.
All this is not quite accurate (the universe doesn't have a midpoint or an edge, as far as we know), but it should give the general idea of how we can see something that far back in time.
adfad666 Ars Centurion
Pun intended?
SmoledMan Ars Scholae Palatinae
I love all the "settled science" about the Bing Bang "theory" and the nature of the expansion.
adfad666 wrote:
Malth wrote:
Thanks, I lost the ref to that side. It is extremely un-confusing when they go through the transformations towards a conformal light-cone diagram.
The galaxy is both farthest and oldest, since distance and look back age increases together.
SmoledMan wrote:
Ah, fractal error. What a nice trigger to expand on! =D
Yup, the science has settled firmly, and less than a decade ago. I would say WMAP was the final test (but I'm an interested layman). One of the results was that Big Bang theory was rejected. =D
Or rather the variants that were on the table at that time. When an area is developing, physicists like to do what biologists have always done, keep their theories inclusive. Inclusive of mechanisms, rejections, meldings, et cetera.
See for example when classical evolution melded with population genetics to become consistent. Not unlike how classical big bang theory melded with inflation and dark energy to be predictive all the way from the end of inflation to the destiny of the universe.
So we recognize the generic big bang from pre-inflation days in the first volumes where we can observe particles and so a temperature. Except that it was nothing like the Planck densities and temperatures that classical big bang theories predicted would be the beginning.
Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel is one of the guys fighting what "lots of good scientists and institutions goof": "What we learn is that there's an upper limit to how hot the Universe ever was in its early history. And although it may have been very hot — up to energies between 10^16 and 10^17 GeV, or about 10 trillion times hotter than the Large Hadron Collider can create — that's actually quite small compared to the scale where we'd need to talk about singularities (which is another factor of ~1000 hotter), or where quantum gravity/string theory effects would become important." [ http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... -big-bang/ ]
But the upshot is precisely that the inflationary cosmology of the standard cosmology we got when ye olde Big Bang was rejected is consistent. There are no gaps or large contradictions. Which means that it is very unlikely to be replaced at its core.
Elaborated, certainly. The next revolution would be if eternal inflation, the natural ground state of inflation, can't be rejected by the ongoing Planck mission. If Planck can test inflation on its lonesome to 3 sigma _and_ constrain the scalar field that like the Higgs field is responsible for inflation to the large set of classes of eternal inflation, then our cosmology would be extended greatly yet again.
Now our personal preferences would make us interpret such a scenario differently. This is my take:
For one, we would observe multiverses by our parameter set by way of anthropic theory. We have had too many correct predictions out of it (cosmological constant and more, see below), while no competing theory has made any at all what I know of.
For another, the quasistable vacuum that the current Higgs field observation gives us would be natural. Habitable bubble universes will ultimately transition towards the universal limit of vacuum energies.
That is, if the standard Higgs is not rejected in the nearest decade of LHC, and we have a non-standard Higgs mechanism. The current Bs result says that no new physics is necessary until Planck scale, except what is necessary to give us dark matter, likely then from super symmetry to be compatible with a string generated eternal inflation physics.
Then we would chalk up an astounding series of tested predictions out of anthropic theory:
- cosmological constant and its finetuning
- cosmological coincidence (why do we live when dark energy starts to dominate)
- structural coincidence (why do we live at maximum structure formation complexity) and 3 more of Bousso's predictions
- finite lifetime of a habitable universe and its finetuning (the quasistable region is extremely narrow and depend on attractor like parameter values)
- separation of Standard Model particle sector and Super Symmetric particle sector (out of the fractal flow attractor of string generated eternal inflation)
- finetuning of SM and SS, very much as severe as that of the cosmological constant
But of course, anthropic theory function like democracy. No one particularly likes it, it is just the least worst alternative. It is also very premature. But it is fun to see that there is at least one Theory Of Everything that can be made already now. (Or rather, it is some 20 - 30 years old already.)
[ADDED AFTER POSTING: Oops. I had forgotten that I posted a similar comment on Ars a few days back, and on a more appropriate thread.
Sorry about the partial repetition that comes by my recapitulating. But it is IMO huge news if physics once again shakes down to something what can't be distinguished from inflation. Even if we have to wait a few decades to be sure about the new physics as such, even less inflation physics.]
Last edited by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:55 pm
Let's see if I get this right. We are expanding but not moving at any relativistic speed, a kind of teleportation of the shaping of the fabric of space?
No. There is no transfer of matter, there can be no transfer of signal faster than the universal speed limit.
Spacetime itself is expanding, it is not expanding into something else spacetime-like. There are no stacked turtles under spacetime physics of cosmology.
And to be precise since we don't want to introduce unnecessary confusion, "we" are not expanding. It is a locally very weak (slow) expansion that structures like us can resist by chemical forces and structures like galaxies by gravitational forces.
The expansion rate, the Hubble constant, is ~ 74.3 (km/s)/Mpc. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law ] A Mpc is ~ 10^6*3.26*10^13 ~ 3*10^19 km, so the expansion rate is ~ 3*10^-18 parts/s, or ~ 10^-10 parts/year.
It is like watching paint dry. A very slooooo ....... oooooowly drying paint.
It is but when you look at sufficiently large volumes, like the distances to galaxies outside the local cluster, that you start to see it sum up to an appreciable average redshift. And the same goes for those galaxies of course, they see the same "nothing seems to happen locally but when I look farther out things starts to move away relative to me".
The "relative" is important, because it is relativity twice over. The physics of distant local volumes is the same as here, which is why the observations are mutually consistent. But what we see doesn't apply to them, it applies to our observations in relation to us.
And as it happens none of us moves _in_ space over time due to the expansion, no movement in relation to space. Not even space moves in some space. It just ... expands.
I don't know if this is helpful, but the best analogy I know is that of a raisin' raisin bread. You just have to keep in mind that the bread is so immensely large that there is no oven - it _is_ the oven.
Then each raisin, each galaxy, sees all other raisins move away after a sufficient long while. And each raisin will see the same. The bread is infinitely large (as the raisins sees it) so there is no center of expansion, all raisins see the same and all the bread is raisin' at the same local rate.
(And in cosmology there can be no center regardless of the size of the bread, because there is no oven. It just so happens that the bread ... errr, universe seems to be infinitely large, so we don't have to wrap our heads around general relativity in that regard. It is difficult enough to take in that spacetime can expand IMHO.)
Still getting the same picture in my head. Expansion between things, ever massive space distances the fabric of space gets stretched out. Over the massive distances the additive is greater than the speed of light? And therefore we can see 13 Billion years in time? It's not just the distance traveled but the light has to go passed the fabric that is constantly stretching/expanding, the light travels along can only go the speed of light?
FrankM Ars Tribunus Militum
The simplest explanation I found is this (which still isn't easy to wrap your head around):
Imagine the surface of a sphere. This is a 2D surface with no center and no edge, and you can go an infinite distance in any direction. However, it has a finite size. If the sphere expands, items on the sphere get further apart from one another, and the further away the faster the apparent motion. Remember that this is a 2D surface... light moves along the surface rather than "through" the sphere.
Now try the herculean task of imaging the 3D surface of a hypersphere. That is what we have around us, the same mechanism described above but in three spatial dimensions. The visible Universe is rimmed by the cosmic microwave background, from way back when the Universe was opaque. Unless we come up with a way to image something that can transit that soup (neutrinos?), the CMB is the outer limit of what we can see. Models tend to agree that the Universe is big enough that we can't see all of it.
Extra mindbendiness: Suppose the Universe was only a couple billion light-years across, but otherwise has all the anthropic-compatible physics we know and love. That CMB stuff would have been wrapping around over and over, but at least we'd be able to see everything that currently exists. Heck, we'd be able to see ourselves from a couple billion years ago (looking all the way around the ball).
Bigdog101 Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Please remember that the physics explained herein is what physics is supposed to, ie physical systems. There are other derivatives from a pure ontological standpoint, and physics is just one extant portion of the cycle of action.
redtomato Ars Tribunus Militum
When I saw the title of this article, I had to delay reading it for a couple of days as I know my mind wouldn't be able to handle the sheer awesomeness contained therein.
Now I've read it. Mind: blown.
Question time.
The target galaxy is stated as being 600 ly across. Is that the size as it is 'now' if it were suddenly teleported to be next to us? Or is that the size when the light was emitted, 424 My after the Big Bang?
Followup: in the latter case, wouldn't 600 ly be a significant fraction of the size of the universe in these early days?
If the age of the universe is circa 13.75 billion years old, then these photons have been travelling circa 13.3 billion years (sort of, by our observation, not the photon's own zero timeline). That's a lot of time for a small packet of energy/ travelling electromagnetic wave to sustain for. I wonder how far away the target galaxy was from Earth back when that light was emitted?
Still getting the same picture in my head. Expansion between things, ever massive space distances the fabric of space gets stretched out. Over the massive distances the additive is greater than the speed of light?
As I said, it appears so for us. But the local volume would say the same about us.
And therefore we can see 13 Billion years in time?
No, all observers can see that far back, because that is how old the universe is.
It's not just the distance traveled but the light has to go passed the fabric that is constantly stretching/expanding, the light travels along can only go the speed of light?
Now is the point where Malth's reference tells the overall physics better than any analogies would.
But as for the detail of the light, one could imagine a worm eating its way through the raisin' raising bread. It eats at the same rate (in the analogy), while the dough expands away. This is why it can only eat so far, some raisins will eventually become too far away.
But locally, a 10^-10 parts/year expansion rate is a lot smaller than the eating speed of 1 parts/year (1 light year for every year).
Bigdog101 wrote:
Please remember that the physics explained herein is what physics is supposed to, ie physical systems. There are other derivatives from a pure ontological standpoint,
What is your testable evidence for "other" physics?
If there isn't any, how could "ontologies" exist, except as a social phenomena? Why would physics be interested in social phenomena of delusions?
Last edited by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:09 am
redtomato wrote:
As a practical convention, it seems astronomers say "now" on the observations (light) that reaches us now. It is natural when, as I commented on before, observations are constrained by their relation to the observer. (But astronomers can estimate both age and distance of the objects seen if need be.)
So that 600 ly was the size then.
Followup: in the latter case, wouldn't 600 ly be a significant fraction of the size of the universe in these early days? ... I wonder how far away the target galaxy was from Earth back when that light was emitted?
In the standard cosmology the size of the universe is infinite. And theoretical (inflation) and observational constraints (CMB, cosmic variance) sets its minimum size as many times larger than the observable universe.
I think you mean the size of the observable universe here. But [shrugs] what would a local galaxy care about that size?
Malth's reference will tell you how things move into or out of observability as the universe ages.
That's a lot of time for a small packet of energy/ travelling electromagnetic wave to sustain for.
As you yourself says, a far field photon doesn't experience time as such between near-field emission and absorption. It experiences cosmological aging though (how is that for a relativistic paradox), as light gets redshifted when the universe expands.
[If you get down to the nuts and bolts of quantum field theory, which I haven't studied, I assume you can see how the EM field ages rather than its particles in isolation. Because QFT of EM is relativistic so any apparent paradoxes should vanish.
In GR there is no paradox. Since there is no global energy until you get to the scale of cosmology where you can marry it properly to inflation and dark energy et cetera under the FRW constraint of cosmology, there is no global time (age) until then either. Else the loss of photon energy would be a paradox too.]
Eventually all light will age to vanish beyond observability as its energy goes to zero. (Or at least the zero point energy of the EM field.)
Evolution Ars Praefectus
I read somewhere (maybe here at Ars?) that the expansion speed is around 90,000 miles per second, give or take of some galaxies move faster than others. That's half of the speed of light at 180,000 miles per second. Assuming Milky Way is moving away from the Big Bang. (it's obvious because of the Big Bang, all things move away from it, so is Milky Way?) If that's the case the light should have already been passed the Milky Way 2.5 billion years ago and way ahead. So I'm thinking that we're looking at the tail of the light that have already passed us instead of the light coming toward us. Don't know if I make any sense at all. I just give it a try.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM wrote:
I never referred to other physics, but derivatives from the physical standpoint. In fact, the physical world is just a reflex point. If every action has an equal and opposite reaction and energy descended into matter, then why not look for the clues in the ascent. You seem intelligent, but stuck at the halfway point.
Dermoplasm Ars Scholae Palatinae
In my next life, I want to be an early galaxy!. Thanks for the rgeat astro news!
brentK Ars Praetorian
Please un-stick us uninitiated with useful information to help us know what you are talking about, a wikipedia link at the bare minimum. You know, standard science fare--references.
Otherwise you come across as a smug crack^H^H^H^H mystic.
brentK wrote:
I apologize if I offended in any way. My original intent was to say that we tend to complicate things and its sometimes helpful to look at things detached from the 'norm' as there are multiple views befitting a nested reality. As to a reference, process theory is as good a starting point as any.


The hip joint is designed to provide stability while allowing for the mobility of our legs. Understanding its design and movement can provide us with everyday tools that can teach us how to properly access the joint and its powerful muscles. This can lead to functional movement, such as walking and going up stairs, that is efficient and confident.
In her book, "Taking Root to Fly", Irene Dowd (1995) describes the structure of the femoral heads, or tops of the thigh bones, as pillars of the arch that is the pelvis (Dowd, p. 21). When we stand, the femoral heads rest deeply into the top of each hip joint (acetabulum) providing us with strength, balance and endurance.
But the positioning of our hip joint is not only reliant on how it is placed, but also on the muscles that support, move and balance it. At one time or another, most of us have experienced tight hip flexors; those muscles located at the front of the hip joints.Through overuse or perhaps less than ideal positioning, we have created an imbalance of the hip muscles and consequently find ourselves needing to stretch or release these muscles.
But beyond the stretches that temporarily hold those hip flexor muscles in a lengthened position, we can also access the images such as the one provided by Dowd (1995) and others. These images can help us mindfully position and move the hips so that awareness and eventually balance, are created during everyday activities.
Standing on a stable surface, place both feet directly under your hips. Pay attention to the alignment of your feet and try to feel a gentle activeness in your quadriceps by gently engaging them to draw the knee caps up the front of the thighs. Place your index fingers on the bony protrusions at the front of each hip (on pelvis). Imagine these landmarks (known as the anterior superior iliac spine – or the front, upper part of your pelvis) as headlights – place them so they face directly forward.
Now, imagine the tops of your thighs (femoral heads) deep within your hip arches, as billiard balls (Franklin, 1996, p. 148). Allow their density and weight to support the arches of your hip sockets. Be aware of any muscles that you're holding around the joint and try to release them by envisioning them melting down the front, sides and backs of your legs.
1) Stand with the right foot on a ledge/platform/stair so that the left foot can dangle. For balance, place your right hand on a wall or other stable surface at shoulder height. Allow the left foot to hang loosely and without effort under the joint. Keep your neutral pelvic alignment (headlights forward) and maintain that sense of melting around the hip joints.
2) Imagine your left leg like a pendulum – allow it to swing with minimal effort forward and back, out to the side and across the midline. Allow it to turn out, turn in, all the while keeping your headlights forward (neutral pelvis) and your muscles melting. Try to feel the length of the pendulum and move as though the leg is twice as long as it is.
3) Take your focus to the top of your pendulum, within the socket arch where your billiard balls (femoral heads) are moving. Envision what is happening in your joint; as you swing your leg forward, the femoral head rolls along the top of its arch and to the back of it; as you swing your leg back, it moves along the top to the front of the arch. As the leg moves away from the body (abduction) the femoral head rolls to the inside of your hip arch and likewise, as it moves towards the midline (adduction) it rolls to the outside. Keep your headlights forward and consider which direction has the greatest range of motion without the need to change the pelvic alignment and how might that be applicable to our everyday movements. Repeat on the other side.
Effective imagery can make greater sense of the anatomy of a joint providing us with the tools to focus our attention onto our movement patterns. By understanding how the joint is designed for movement, stability or both, we bring mindfulness and awareness into how we move our bodies…two invaluable tools in increasing strength, agility and overall physical well being.
– Hip Release, Reformer Footwork, Side Splits, Single Leg Stretch, Squats on the Cadillac, Standing Leg Press on the Chair (Front & Side).
Dowd, I. (1995) "Taking Root to Fly".
Franklin, E. (1996) "Dynamic Alignment Through Imagery".