The First Stars of the Universe --Major Discovery Announced by MIT
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
 

« Image of the Day: Stunning Ring Galaxy Encircled by Bright Pink Nebulae | Main | NASA's New Totally Cool Moon Maps »

December 06, 2012

The First Stars of the Universe --Major Discovery Announced by MIT

 

          8023911042_4dd02d494f_z (1)

 

The birth of the first stars is one of these important moments in the history of the universe, says Robert Simcoe, Associate Professor of Physics at MIT. "It went from looking like the early universe, which was just gas and dark matter, to looking like it does today, where there are stars and galaxies … it's the point when the universe started to resemble what it looks like today. And it's sort of amazing how early that happens. It didn't take long."

Researchers at MIT, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of California at San Diego have peered far back in time, to the era of the first stars and galaxies, and found matter with no discernible trace of heavy elements. To make this measurement, the team analyzed light from the most distant known quasar, a galactic nucleus more than 13 billion light-years from Earth.

These quasar observations provide a snapshot of our universe during its infancy, a mere 750 million years after the initial explosion that created the universe. Analysis of the quasar's light spectrum provided no evidence of heavy elements in the surrounding gaseous cloud—a finding that suggests the quasar dates to an era nearing that of the universe's first stars.

"The first stars will form in different spots in the universe … it's not like they flashed on at the same time," says Simcoe."But this is the time that it starts getting interesting." Simcoe and his colleagues have published the results from their study in the journal Nature.

Based on numerous theoretical models, most scientists agree on a general sequence of events during the universe's early development: Nearly 14 billion years ago, an immense explosion, now known as the Big Bang, threw off massive amounts of matter and energy, creating a rapidly expanding universe. In the minutes following the explosion, protons and neutrons collided in nuclear fusion reactions to form hydrogen and helium. Eventually, the universe cooled to a point where fusion stopped generating these basic elements, leaving hydrogen as the dominant constituent of the universe. Heavier elements, such as carbon and oxygen, would not form until the first stars appeared.

Astronomers have attempted to identify the point at which the first stars were born by analyzing light from more distant bodies. (The farther away an object is in space, the older it is.) Until now, scientists have only been able to observe objects that are less than about 11 billion years old. These objects all exhibit heavy elements, suggesting stars were already plentiful, or at least well established, at that point in the universe's history.

"[The astrophysics community] sort of hit this wall," says Simcoe, also at MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "When this [quasar] was discovered, we could sort of leapfrog further back in time and make a measurement that was substantially earlier."

The quasar in question, discovered in August 2011, is the most distant of its kind. To study such distant objects, Simcoe and his colleagues built an infrared spectrometer, which they fitted onto the Magellan Telescope, a massive ground-based telescope in Chile.

This past January, the team trained the telescope on the newly discovered quasar, and collected data from its light. The spectrometer split the incoming light into different wavelengths, which the team plotted on a graph. Simcoe then looked for telltale dips in the data, correlating various wavelengths with the light given off by different chemicals. "Each chemical has its own fingerprint," Simcoe says. "Based on the pattern of what light is absorbed, it tells you the chemical composition."

Simcoe and his colleagues determined the quasar's "intrinsic spectrum"—the amount of light naturally given off by such a body—and compared this with the observed data to search for the presence of heavy elements. The group found evidence of hydrogen, but no oxygen, silicon, iron or magnesium in the light data. But confirming the absence of evidence for heavy elements was a challenging task. "It's always hard to establish the absence of something," Simcoe says.

The researchers considered every other scenario that might explain the light patterns they observed, including newborn galaxies and other matter situated in front of the quasar. Their efforts ultimately confirmed that the quasar's light spectrum indicated an absence of heavy elements 750 million years after the Big Bang.

Going forward, Simcoe hopes to analyze other quasars from this early era to further confirm the absence of heavy elements. "If we can find things in this epoch, we can start to characterize them," Simcoe says. "There's always something interesting at the edge." Journal reference: Nature.

The image at the top of the page is a detail based on the original Hubble Ultra Deep Field, with new observations added in since the originals were done. It shows over 5500 galaxies. – an island universe of billions of stars- in a small region of space in the constellation Fornax, composited from Hubble Space Telescope data accumulated over a period from September 24, 2003, through to January 16, 2004, looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang).

The Daily Galaxy via Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Comments

Luckily that event took place so long ago, time to look forward to real discoveries.

Quasars are not far away! Proved by H. Arp

When we assume that they are at cosmic distances, then all manner of problems and contradictions arise.

Roman, that's been debunked to the point that it's embarrassing to even bring it up.

Here is a link to a quick image I made an illustration an idea for a "Solar Powerscope" I'd love if someone more educated in these matters than me could tell me if something like this could be possible... it could be in space or on Earth... i'm not sure if it would be best if it was visible light or infrared...

http://i.imgur.com/YYLJZ.jpg

M.I.T. is not an institution criticizable in hardly as contrite of comments, and probably every discovery they've made have been, "real discoveries." There are three examples above, of phonie intellectuals... Wanting to taste that job-well-done glory, though they couldn't taste it with real scholarship. (lmao)

Anyway, isn't it great fortune that we still had enough time to catch light that was still present in the Universe (specifically our part of it), from the beginning of it? It could have all been shown too soon, but these scientists could catch it!

"(The farther away an object is in space, the older it is.)"

This statement is incorrect and misleading.

I would suggest a change along the lines of:
(The farther away an observed object is in space, the earlier the light was emitted.), or
(Since the speed of light is finite, light from farther away comes from further in the past.)

Big Bang contradicts itself.

Quote 1) “The first stars will form in different spots in the universe … it's not like they flashed on at the same time," says Simcoe.

Quote 2) “Astronomers have attempted to identify the point at which the first stars were born by analyzing light from more distant bodies. Until now, scientists have only been able to observe objects that are less than about 11 billion years old. These objects all exhibit heavy elements, suggesting stars were already plentiful, or at least well established, at that point in the universe's history”.

Quote 3) "[The astrophysics community] sort of hit this wall," says Simcoe, also at MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "When this [quasar] was discovered, we could sort of leapfrog further back in time and make a measurement that was substantially earlier."

AD: Of course “The astrophysics community” hits a wall of contradictions and surprises.

Accordingly to the Big Bang theory the first stars (of hydrogen and helium according to the formation theory) would have been formed closely to the BB-point, but “old stars with heavy elements can be found everywhere” – so this contradicts both the elementary formation theory as well as the Big Bang itself.

- When concentrating on the contradictions, it is very obviously that the formative motions in the observable Universe goes in circuits where all gases and particles also goes in circuits of formation.

The conclusion must therefore be: The Big Bang is wrong and a kind of “Steady State Universe” is right. Stars and galaxies etc. are born and dissolved and born again in the Universe. And the cosmic microwave radiation represents the “cosmic sea”/the aether in which the formation takes place for ever.

Can someone explain why the BB did not just create one ginormous black hole? The density must have been incredible.

Yes, it must have been an incredible density and yes, it is possible that such immense density could have created an ginormous black hole. One theory of a possible 'holographic universe' actually takes this into consideration.

Ian, quite the contrary. Halton Arp's work has been confirmed time & again. The pseudo-skeptics who have attempted to debunk him, however, have been debunked time and again. These MIT scientists should be embarrassed by their incompetence.

Accordingly to the Big Bang theory the first stars (of hydrogen and helium according to the formation theory) would have been formed closely to the BB-point, but “old stars with heavy elements can be found everywhere” – so this contradicts both the elementary formation theory as well as the Big Bang itself.

Simply wanted to say good weblog, that I learn it every now and then.

@O & ged,
If "immense density could have created an ginormous black hole", nothing would have come out from it accordingly to the theories of "black holes" - and therefore the whole Big Bang idea connected to the terms of "density and gravity" is completely contradictive and illogical.


Accordong to latest theory:
"When the universe was just 10E-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light."
Wouldn't this sort of lead one to think that the singularity that started the big bang could have, in fact, been a ginormous black hole and it expelled matter fast enough to escape the event hrizon (the schwarzschild radius).
This begs the question: what caused it to expell the "matter"?


Post a comment

« Image of the Day: Stunning Ring Galaxy Encircled by Bright Pink Nebulae | Main | NASA's New Totally Cool Moon Maps »




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