The Oldest Star in the Universe? --"Closest to the Big Bang in Composition"The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries Channel: Sci, Space, TechFollow the Daily Galaxy
« Most Ancient Stars in Universe Hidden in Dwarf Galaxies |Main| NASA's Mars' 'Curiosity Mission' Live Today -- Weather & Water Search Update »August 22, 2012 The Oldest Star in the Universe? --"Closest to the Big Bang in Composition"
A primordial star at the outer edges of our Milky Way galaxy upsets current theories of star formation in the universe. The star simply shouldn't exist since it lacks the materials astronomers have long thought necessary for low-mass stars to form, scientists say. When Lorenzo Monaco of the European Southern Observatory in Chile and colleagues examined the elemental composition of the oddball star, prosaically named SDSS J102915+172927, they discovered that it has a mass smaller than that of the Sun, and is probably more than 13 billion years old.
"This star has the composition that is the nearest that has been found up to now to the big bang composition," says Piercarlo Bonifacio of the Paris Observatory, France.
The low concentration of chemical elements heavier than hydrogen and helium suggests it is the most primitive star ever discovered, yet the exact ratio of these heavier elements suggests it is younger. Much, much younger."In some sense it is a perfectly normal star, but it is different because it's in a very low metal range," Monaco says. The relationship between a star's age and its elemental composition stems from the way the early universe evolved.
The first stars are thought to have condensed out of the hot soup left over from the big bang and contained only hydrogen, helium and a trace of lithium. Most were giants tens of times more massive than the sun, that quickly exploded as supernovas spewing elements from carbon to iron, which subsequent generations of stars incorporated. The process occurred again and again, with younger generations of smaller stars acquiring larger fractions of heavier elements. Which is how our Sun eventually formed.
Until now, the universe seemed to agree. Astronomers had found only three stars with very low amounts of heavier elements. They were low-mass, and oxygen and carbon dominated the traces of heavier elements, which meant they passed the carbon-oxygen threshold needed to form a low-mass star – despite having a very low concentration of heavier elements overall.
But SDSS J102915+172927 is different and a mystery: it's composed almost entirely hydrogen and helium, making it look like one of the very first in the universe. When Monaco and colleagues used two spectrographs at the Very Large Telescope in Chile to examined its elemental composition, they found it had the lowest content of heavier elements ever seen yet – 4.5 millionths that of the sun.
But similar to modern stars, its oxygen and carbon levels do not dominate over the other heavier elements. This means there is not enough carbon and oxygen overall to meet the critical threshold needed to form a low-mass star. According to the theory, this star should not have been able to form. One theory is that that the star is indeed near-primordial and that its nursery was cooled interstellar dust rather than carbon and oxygen.
It's also possible that low-mass, low-metal stars like this one could be detritus from giant stars' birth, suggests Abraham Loeb of Harvard University according to New Scientist.
The Daily Galaxy via http://www.eso.org
Posted at 08:30 AM | PermalinkComments
Yay.A new mystery.
Posted by:Paradox |August 22, 2012 at 04:05 PMso when did Humans complete the entire mapping of the vast expanse of space in which multipable universes are found, in order to make such a claim as this one?
Posted by:The insighter |August 23, 2012 at 09:11 PM@Insighter -- It is simply statistical evidence, not absolute -- so no need to scan all of the universe, just a representative sample
Posted by:Dr Who |August 23, 2012 at 11:00 PMA WRONG FORMATTING MODEL CREATES WRONG ASSUMPTIONS
Accordingly to the consensus model of elementary formation of gasses and particles, the star, SDSS J102915+172927, should not exist. - Well, maybe there is something missing in this consensus model?
Quote 1: “The relationship between a star's age and its elemental composition stems from the way the early universe evolved”.
AD: Connecting the elementary composition with age is illogical. A specific star depends on the actual composition of the gasses and particles that were at the location of the initial formation of this star. It has nothing to do with age, but with the actual composition and with the dynamic forces that create this specific star.
Quote 2: “But the SDSS J102915+172927 is different and a mystery: It's composed almost entirely hydrogen and helium, making it looks like one of the very first in the universe”.
AD: Basic elements are all over in the Universe and the formation of stars and planets come in all kind of compositions – or the lack of some compositions.
Quote 3: “One theory is that that the star is indeed near-primordial and that its nursery was cooled interstellar dust rather than carbon and oxygen”.
AD: Connecting a random star composition to something near-primordial and again to the Big Bang can only lead the astronomers astray on the way to even more cosmological surprises.
Generally: Since our solar system is an orbiting part in the Milky Way, it is obvious that the formation of our solar system was/is an integrated part of the formation in our galaxy – and not formatted via “a local cloud of gas and dust that suddenly decided to collapse and condense under the pressure of gravity and later on produced the actual different elements present in our solar system”.
It is this formation theory that creates lots of cosmological confusions – together with the assumption of Big Bang and the consensus gravity model.
Our solar system was once formatted in the core of the Milky Way galaxy and transported out via the bars in the Milky Way and further out in the galactic arm. This explains “the galactic rotation anomaly” where objects in the Milky Way orbit the galactic core with the same velocity. The objects just follow the momentum from the swirling centre in the galactic core from where the objects were formatted and fairly slowly were launched out in the galactic surroundings.
- The problem of lacking gasses and elements in our solar system - and in the star SDSS J102915+172927 – is just a matter of what gasses and elements were at stage and hand in the formatting place.
Elementary gasses and particles are unevenly spread all over in the Universe and have always been. And therefore galaxies; stars and planets and so on, come in all kind of shapes and compositions and therefore the consensus formatting model is wrong in assuming a formatting model based on age.
Basical gasses and elements are all over in the Universe and are unevenly spread and composed. These gasses and elements undergoes an eternal formation of sorting and assembling and dissolving in the eternal Universe. “Big Bang” is just another assumption based on the lack of the overall looks of this eternal and cyclical formation.
>Quote 1: “The relationship between a star's age and its elemental composition stems from the way the early universe evolved”.
>AD: Connecting the elementary composition with age is illogical. A specific star depends on the actual composition of the gasses and particles that were at the location of the initial formation of this star. It has nothing to do with age, but with the actual composition and with the dynamic forces that create this specific star.
Age is a relevant and logical variable because the elementary composition of stars changes as they age, and not in unpredictable ways, but in very established ways.
Posted by:Nielsdatter |August 24, 2012 at 09:21 PMPost a comment
Name:
Email Address: (Not displayed with comment.)
URL:
Remember personal info?
Comments:« Most Ancient Stars in Universe Hidden in Dwarf Galaxies |Main| NASA's Mars' 'Curiosity Mission' Live Today -- Weather & Water Search Update »var ACE_AR = {Site: '774230', Size: '120600'};
var ACE_AR = {Site: '770549', Size: '300250'};
Our Partners
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js'%3E%3C/script%3E"));COMSCORE.beacon({ c1: 2, c2: "6035669", c3: "", c4: "http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/08/the-oldest-star-in-the-universe-closest-to-the-big-bang-in-composition.html", c5: "", c6: "", c15: ""});
View the original article here
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق