Interesting, star older than the universe??

[Iggy]

I find that hard to believe.

Checking Wiki source here, mentioning "Computer Model of the Sun at 4.5 Billion Years" from a 1965 book (B. Stromgrew (1965) reprinted in D. Clayton Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.

 

There must be something more recent to double check.

 

Ok, try it this way. The sun produces 384.6 yotta watts (3.846×10²⁶ W) of energy. That comes from Nasa's online sun fact sheet which I hope is young enough for us both to trust. Significant fusion only happens in the sun's core. The sun's core is roughly 10³⁰ kg. That makes 0.00038 Watts per kg (if you do the math), or 0.038 watts per 100 kilograms. That is comparable to a human no matter how difficult it is to believe. A human might produce 80 watts (a reptile 10). To an order of magnitude these are comparable. The rate of fusion in the sun's core is a bit less than the heat produced by a human.

 

If the issue is that you just can't find it believable then I don't know how to help more than I have.

 

*** edited the redundant "per second" after "watts"

Edited April 9, 2013 by Iggy

[SomethingToPonder]

The universe is the same age everywhere so it's no surprise to me that such an old object is near us

Well if the universe is expanding, Or was at some point, Then parts of it that were created first must be older.

[StringJunky]

Well if the universe is expanding, Or was at some point, Then parts of it that were created first must be older.

 

Everything everywhere was created at the same time so it's all the same age. The expansion of space is everywhere and has no single point of origin therefore no part is older than another. Think of space as distributed with an infinite number of equally spaced points through 360⁰ and the distance between all adjacent points is simultaneously increasing with time. it's not a radial expansion with the outer edge younger than the inner.

[Arch2008]

Due to the pressure at the core of the Sun, friction heats that 100 kg of hydrogen to fifteen million degrees Fahrenheit. So the actual energy released by fusion may be less than that generated by a lizard, but it would be a well cooked lizard. The core of the Sun is a furnace, but fusion is not a magic wand. Our current fusion reactors use more energy than they produce.

[Dekan]

The above twisting and turning posts, strongly imply this: that the old explosive "Big Bang" theory is a busted flush.

 

What we need is a good new "Steady State" theory.

 

Who will supply it?

 

 

[zapatos]

The above twisting and turning posts, strongly imply this: that the old explosive "Big Bang" theory is a busted flush. What we need is a good new "Steady State" theory. Who will supply it?

What was said that implies the BB theory is busted? Can you summarize your thoughts please?

And are you saying that the BB theory implied some sort of 'explosion'?

Edited April 10, 2013 by zapatos

[momentuman]

I saw this on a YouTube channel called SciShow. There's obviously something wrong with the way that we date celestial objects, which means we must remeasure the age every star we have ever measured. I cannot think of an anomaly that can do this. It did say that they measured it to be approximately 16,000,000,000 years old on their first measurement, but their second measurement still had the star be older than the universe at about 14,600,000,000 years old. This is very interesting and I wish to know if they've made any mistakes or there is a flaw in the way we measure the ages of stars.

[krash661]

some have said that the universe is a polar jet of some sort.

[SomethingToPonder]

Now hang on, The Big bang theory is very credible, But in all fairness it does not mean it is a guaranteed definite fact. Now im not going to get into a debate about whether or not the BBT is correct or not as simply put, Im no expert, in that field therefore could not logically argue any point on either side of the argument. But so far every other theory that may explain how the universe was created as we know it has, sounded a lot less credible and has not had nearly as many facts or credible points to it.

 

Everything everywhere was created at the same time so it's all the same age. The expansion of space is everywhere and has no single point of origin therefore no part is older than another. Think of space as distributed with an infinite number of equally spaced points through 360⁰ and the distance between all adjacent points is simultaneously increasing with time. it's not a radial expansion with the outer edge younger than the inner.

Ahh i see now. I agree.However there could be still parts of the universe developing now that would therefore be younger than the rest as some parts as we know are billions of years old and these "new" parts are in the last few million years developing. We can only see so far into space (which is also technically back in time, due to the distance and the speed that light travels at) so there could be a lot going on beyond that we just dont know about.

Being honest here though , The way we calculate the age of star's may well be incorrect. If you go back 50 years which is nothing in terms of time since the universe was created. We had nowhere near as much knowledge to do with the ages of star's etc as we do now. in another 10 years from now i would not be surprised if they came up with a new way that made it much more accurate. However for all i know it could be exactly bang on as it is now and we have truly mastered calculating the ages of stars.

I find it very annoying when people stick to one certain theory as if it is 100% reliable and guaranteed as nothing we know ever is. 10 years, 50 years or 1000 down the line, something could come to light that completely disproves even the most sound of theories. And it is illogical to think otherwise(not directed at any above posts)

[zapatos]

However there could be still parts of the universe developing now that would therefore be younger than the rest as some parts as we know are billions of years old and these "new" parts are in the last few million years developing.

I am not quite sure what you mean by 'parts of the universe developing now', but if you mean that there is more universe 'now' than there was 'then', that is incorrect.

 

It is true that, for example, stars have formed recently, and that means this star is newer than that star. But the mass/energy that comprises all stars is the same age.

 

While the mass/energy of the universe has changed form and structure over time, there is no new mass/energy in the universe now, that was not in the universe at the time of the Big Bang. In this sense, the entire universe is the same age.

[Iggy]

Now hang on, The Big bang theory is very credible, But in all fairness it does not mean it is a guaranteed definite fact.

 

<snip>

 

I find it very annoying when people stick to one certain theory as if it is 100% reliable

 

The current model isn't the only theory where every part of the universe is equally old. The only thing one needs to assume is that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. It is pretty plainly said in a derivation of the FLRW metric that I once read and should find...

 

 

The simplest universe consistent with SR is one which appears isotropic (the same in all directions) to a set of privileged observers, called co-moving observers because each observer sees the others as moving along with the overall cosmic expansion. (Actually these observers are just a figure of speech - the important thing is that there are sites from which the universe would appear isotropic if there were anyone there to observe).

 

The existence of three or more such observers places very strong constraints on the possible structure of space-time. For a start, there is a "natural" time coordinate: the time as measured by each co-moving observer, equipped with a standard clock. Notice that their clocks all measure the same time because they are all controlled by the same rules of physics, and the observers can synchronize their clocks by agreeing to define t=0 to be some special moment in the life of the universe, for instance its beginning (if it had one). The existence of a cosmic time is an enormous simplification; without it, there is no sensible way of separating space from time in the 4-D continuum of space-time.

 

-Robertson Walker metric

 

So, there you have it. A universe consistent with special relativity in which the laws of physics are equivalent everywhere implies the existence of cosmic time (which, can roughly be translated, that all parts are equally old).