The Oldest Star in the Universe? --"Closest to the Big Bang in Composition"
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Did the Universe Begin with a Big Bang or Big Chill? "It Was More Like Water Freezing into Ice" Says New Theory | 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"

 

            Impossible-star-580x580

 

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.

 

            Impossible_star_composition

The Daily Galaxy via http://www.eso.org

Comments

Yay.A new mystery.

so 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?

@Insighter -- It is simply statistical evidence, not absolute -- so no need to scan all of the universe, just a representative sample

A 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.

Quote: "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".

AD: Accordingly to the standard explanation, it is so, yes.

Quote from the article: "According to the theory, this star should not have been able to form"

AD: Is it then the/your theory that is wrong? Obviously, another theory is needed in order to explain this anomaly. So read above again.

- No matter how long time/age you´ve got, a atar cannot be composed by other gasses or heavier elements than found in the specific molecular cloud from which it is formatted.

Thanks for the insight Ivar!

If the standard model of stellar formation predicts that such a star "should not have been able to form", and precise visual and quantitative observations and measurements are evidence that it has formed and continues to exist (not withstanding the light time in transit between the star and its observers), why then, the theory is falsified, at least with regard to such a star's formation.

Of course, singular falsifications here and there or everywhere are routinely reported today as "anomalies" and "surprises", and it is not popular to falsify a widely accepted astrophysical theory on the basis of contrary evidentiary findings. I suspect Nielsen is correct: stars are formed out of whatever elements are at hand, and if weak metallicity is the result, the star simply has to live with that, and whatever transmutations may be occurring in its highly energetic plasma atmospheric conditions.

It's sort of like saying you can't have a lightbulb without tungsten. I see fluorescent tubes lighting my garage, however, and have compact fluorescents in my reading lamp, and use an LED powered flashlight (torch). Some They all run on electricity. They all produce electromagnetic radiation. They all can be verified to exist by direct observation and measurements and common sense. Some have tungsten, some have mercury and argon, some have semiconductors; all of which produce the observed radiation in a variety of ways.

Stars are no different.

The title of this article is telling: “The Oldest Star in the Universe? --"Closest to the Big Bang in Composition".

We also find in this article the following remark:

"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.

Big Bang Cosmology is not a science at all; it is theology. The relativistic cosmologists hide from the general public and their students the fact that the Big Bang Cosmology was first conjured up by the Belgian mathematician and priest Georges Lemaître. Thereby Lemaître introduced a creation event into the equations of General Relativity and hence infused physics with the notion of God and His creation of the Universe. The Big Bang theory has been ratified by the Vatican owing to Lemaître’s creationism. All Lemaître did was substitute one creation event with another creation event. Indeed, Lemaître admitted to the Swedish Nobel Prize winner in physics, Hannes Alfvén, that he came up with the idea to accord with Christian theology and the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Alfvén was not impressed. Here is what Alfvén reported: “I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaître was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing. “There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfvén explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago. Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

Furthermore, in January 1933, Georges Lemaître travelled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” So evidently Einstein was actually a creationist, revealing thereby that he too was actually theological in his real disposition, despite his often overt cryptic claims that he was not. Big Bang Cosmology only has the façade of science because it is couched in the mantle of complicated, but meaningless, mathematics, in terms of General Relativity which is an invalid theory because it violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum and is therefore in conflict with experiment on a very deep level. Before the Big Bang theory there was actually no scientific basis attached to the question of the creation of the Universe. Only theology dealt with this question then.

It is quite preposterous to suppose that some pithy equations of physics can account for the existence of the Universe. It is unscientific to suggest that matter (the Universe) came into existence from absolutely nothing 13.7 billion years ago by means of a bang. We know from everyday experience that bangs require something to go bang; nothingness cannot go bang. Moreover, nothingness going bang violates the conservation of energy.

First of all allow me to say that I can not express in words how much I have enjoyed reading the above conversation. Well done all.

There is a paragraph early on that has me baffled a bit; "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."

Look at these two words in that sentence, "concentration" and "ratio." Aren't these words pretty much synonymous in this particular usage (both mean "percentage")? And yet they are being used to contradict one another...? Seems strange.

Like saying, "the concentration of alcohol in my drink may be 40%, but I am drinking 3 parts cola to every 2 parts booze, so this really won't contribute to any drunk driving offense.

My point here is that the entire article is discredited by this grammatical malfunction. I mean, you guys have argued some pretty great stuff, and I agree with your reasoning..., "you can't make turtle soup if there are no turtles to be had and, if all you have are turtles, that's probably the kind of soup you will end up with."

I think of things like this; 99.99% of all "knowledge" science brings us in any given century is completely discredited come the next century. Mankind stands on a grain of sand and makes sweeping claims about eternity, but frequently can't find his own butt with both hands in a room full of mirrors.

Cheers all.


Post a comment

« Did the Universe Begin with a Big Bang or Big Chill? "It Was More Like Water Freezing into Ice" Says New Theory | Main | NASA's Mars' 'Curiosity Mission' Live Today -- Weather & Water Search Update »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E