michel123456 Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 The earliest star in the Universe belongs to our galaxy. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/researchers-identify-one-of-the-earliest-stars-in-the-universe-0209.html SMSS J031300.36-670839.3. SMSS J031300.36-670839.3 is a star lying in the Milky Way at the distance of 6000 light years from Earth. With an age of 13.7 billion years,[1] it is one the oldest known stars in the Universe.[2] No comment, for info only.
swansont Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 The earliest star in the Universe belongs to our galaxy. "Oldest known star", which is a significantly different claim.
EdEarl Posted February 10, 2014 Posted February 10, 2014 Yes, oldest known star. There may be several such stars in many galaxies, because many galaxies have a similar history. Telescopes are limited by what they can see; galaxies are so distant that observing individual stars is difficult to impossible.
Ankit Gupta Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 How did they got that "it is the oldest one"
Spyman Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) The oldest one KNOWN to humankind, not the oldest one in the whole Universe, as swansont points out in post #2. Did you read the first article Michel linked to? Here is an excerpt where they explain how they "got it": "To find the earliest generations of stars, scientists look for vanishingly small abundances of the first heavy elements created, such as iron. Stars with very low chemical abundances, they believe, may have formed in the earliest epoch of the universe, more than 13 billion years ago, when few elements had yet formed. To find such a stellar candidate, Frebel, physics postdoc Heather Jacobson, and their colleagues at Mount Stromlo Observatory in Australia went through the spectral data of millions of stars collected by SkyMapper, an automated telescope that tracks planets, stars, and asteroids in the southern sky. The researchers weeded through the data, discarding any stars with spectra similar to the sun - a modern analogue with relatively large chemical abundances. After whittling down the stellar field, the researchers singled out a handful of stars containing very low chemical signatures. They then got a closer look at these stars using the Magellan Telescopes - a pair of large telescopes in Chile - to obtain high-resolution spectral data. From this data, Frebel and her colleagues analyzed each star’s absorption lines. Every chemical element gives off a characteristic absorption line, or wavelength of light; the fainter this line, the less of the chemical is present. In the case of SMSS J031300.36-670839.3, the researchers calculated that the star’s iron content is at least seven orders of magnitude, or 10 million times, less than the iron found in the sun - which is the lowest iron abundance ever detected in a star. The star, they concluded, must be a true second-generation star."http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/researchers-identify-one-of-the-earliest-stars-in-the-universe-0209.html Edited February 12, 2014 by Spyman
John Cuthber Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Is this a bit like saying the best takeaway food place known to me is n the city where I live? The oldest known star is interesting. the fact that it's nearby may simply reflect the fact that it's harder for us to judge the ages of more distant ones.
pantheory Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 How did they got that "it is the oldest one" Based upon the age of the material, atoms, molecules in its spectra, this star was accordingly created near the beginnings of the universe according to the Big Bang model. The calculated ages of this star's elements are based upon known element ratios and decay rates of elements. Of course if the Big Bang model is entirely wrong then this claim along with almost countless other beliefs and predictions of astronomers, astrophysicists, and theorists of today, I expect will eventually be replaced with far-better and simpler theories in the future -- concerning a far older universe.
michel123456 Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Based upon the age of the material, atoms, molecules in its spectra, this star was accordingly created near the beginnings of the universe according to the Big Bang model. The calculated ages of this star's elements are based upon known element ratios and decay rates of elements. Of course if the Big Bang model is entirely wrong then this claim along with almost countless other beliefs and predictions of astronomers, astrophysicists, and theorists of today, I expect will eventually be replaced with far-better and simpler theories in the future -- concerning a far older universe. I was expecting your post much earlier Pan. My humble opinion is that all scientists who observe that kind of stars are hardly trying to fit their observations with the standard model of cosmology because it is risky. It is so easy to introduce a plus-minus error margin that fits. We will have to wait till some outrageous measurements are made, repeated several times by many institutions, before seriously questioning the model. I am sure this will happen. Is this a bit like saying the best takeaway food place known to me is n the city where I live? The oldest known star is interesting. the fact that it's nearby may simply reflect the fact that it's harder for us to judge the ages of more distant ones. Yes. Edited February 16, 2014 by michel123456
pantheory Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) I was expecting your post much earlier Pan. Hi Michel, I was out of State for about a month or so and away from my/a computer My humble opinion is that all scientists who observe that kind of stars are hardly trying to fit their observations with the standard model of cosmology because it is risky. It is so easy to introduce a plus-minus error margin that fits. We will have to wait till some outrageous measurements are made, repeated several times by many institutions, before seriously questioning the model. I am sure this will happen. I don't think they were deliberately distorting data. Instead I think they were looking for the oldest stars in our galaxy and upon finding this one interpreted the results of testing and study based upon the Big Bang model as would be expected IMO. I agree with your conclusion ("......we will have to wait till some outrageous measurements are made......before seriously questioning the model") but think that it may take a great deal of time and intestinal fortitude for any astronomers to assert conclusions contrary to the prevailing Big Bang model since I believe there are many ways to interpret the same data to fit it within almost any cosmological model. Cheers my friend. Edited February 16, 2014 by pantheory 1
swansont Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 My humble opinion is that all scientists who observe that kind of stars are hardly trying to fit their observations with the standard model of cosmology because it is risky. It is so easy to introduce a plus-minus error margin that fits. We will have to wait till some outrageous measurements are made, repeated several times by many institutions, before seriously questioning the model. I am sure this will happen. The article states that the discovery will force some re-thinking about the models, though it's stellar formation and nucleosynthesis models rather than the BB, since this really doesn't make for any kind of test of the BB theory.
michel123456 Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 The article states that the discovery will force some re-thinking about the models, though it's stellar formation and nucleosynthesis models rather than the BB, since this really doesn't make for any kind of test of the BB theory. Yes. We don't disagree. If one day they find a star twice the age of the universe, they will be some concern about the method for finding the age. You (I mean I) will have to wait longer before discussing the BB.
Recommended Posts