Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Star Found, Estimated at 13.2 Billion Years Old

raguirre writes "An article on Physorg.org reports that a newly found star may be as old as the universe itself. Recent studies have concluded that the Big Bang occurred somewhere in the neighborhood of 13.7 Billion years ago. The star, a heavy-elements laden fossil labeled HE 1523-0901 on charts was probably born right around the same time; approximately 13.2 Billion years ago. 'Today, astronomer Anna Frebel of the the University of Texas at Austin McDonald Observatory and her colleagues have deduced the star's age based on the amounts of radioactive elements it contains compared to certain other "anchor" elements, specifically europium, osmium and iridium.'"

27 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Age of the universe. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course, according to some pastors, that star is only a few thousand years old. It barely predates The Flood.

    --saint

    1. Re:Age of the universe. by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      A thousand, a billion, it still wants you off it's lawn.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  2. "Right around the same time" by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Recent studies have concluded that the Big Bang occurred somewhere in the neighborhood of 13.7 Billion years ago. The star, a heavy-elements laden fossil labeled HE 1523-0901 on charts was probably born right around the same time; approximately 13.2 Billion years ago.

    Since when was "right around the same time" the same thing as "500 million years later" ?

    1. Re:"Right around the same time" by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since the quantity in question (500m) represents only about 3% of the other quantity in question (13.7b)

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    2. Re:"Right around the same time" by click2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, you forgot part 3

      1. Bang
      2. Stars
      3. Profit

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:"Right around the same time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd like to Bang Stars for Profit as well!

    4. Re:"Right around the same time" by bitt3n · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since when was "right around the same time" the same thing as "500 million years later" ?
      "Hi honey, I'm on my way to pick you up for the movies, and I'll be there in half an hour."
      "Great! I just have to get dressed, so I should be ready right around the same time."
    5. Re:"Right around the same time" by QuickFox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since when was "right around the same time" the same thing as "500 million years later" ? What? You think 500 million years is a long time?

      *Sigh!* Today's youth, always impatient.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    6. Re:"Right around the same time" by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny
      Of course, who's to say that their method of dating stars isn't wrong.

      I'm not sure you've read your own sig.

  3. Aye by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 5, Funny

    "a newly found start may be as old as the universe itself"

    Well, that's why they call it a 'start' isn't it?

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  4. Heavy elements? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The star, a heavy-elements laden fossil labeled HE 1523-0901 on charts was probably born right around the same time; approximately 13.2 Billion years ago.

    I thought early stars had very few heavy elements because there had yet to be multiple generations of stars to produce such. Thus, where did the heavy elements come from?

    1. Re:Heavy elements? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're right, and this is one of the confusing things about the writeup, especially since they call it a metal poor star near the beginning and say it's rich in radioactives later.

      The Big Bang stopped more or less at helium, and things like uranium have to cook in non-equilibrium processes like supernovas.

      500 million years is enough time for that to happen, since a supergiant star can race through its entire lifetime in a few million years. This could have formed from the remnants of one of the earliest supernovas, or it could be several generations old.

    2. Re:Heavy elements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because of the higher density of the universe back then, the first few dozen generations of star were probably all super-massive giants that only have a lifespan of between 10 and 100 million years. The first supernova-generated elements were introduced to the universe very early, in fact production of them used to be orders of magnitudes higher at the beginning.

    3. Re:Heavy elements? by Graymalkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Supergiant and hypergiant stars (like Eta Carinae and SN 2006gy's progenitor) don't have long lifetimes and were likely prevalent in the early universe. Their deaths could have formed a lot of the heavy elements in HE 1523-0901. Five hundred million years is plenty of time for a lot of 100-120 solar mass giants to burn out and go supernova. It's likely the remnants of these early giants produced most of the stellar nurseries the next generation of less massive stars were born in.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    4. Re:Heavy elements? by Agent+Orange · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's correct. The star is metal-poor -- it's has an iron abundance (the standard measure of how much metals a star has) of [Fe/H] = -2.95. This is a lograthmic scale, and means that, on a scale where the sun is 0.0, HE1523 has about 1/1000th the amount of iron. The bracket notation means [Fe/H] = log10{N(Fe}/N(H)} - log10{N(Fe)/N(H)}_sun...i.e. the logarithmic difference of the number of atoms of Fe, compared to hydrogen, normalised to the solar ratio.

      But the kicker is that HE1523 is very heavily r-process enhanced too...which means that it has a lot r-process, neutron-capture elements (think Uranium and thorium), compared to how much iron it has. HE1523 has [r/Fe] = 1.8....which means it has a 100 times more r-process heavy metals compared to iron, than does the sun.

      BOTH of these factors are very important for this measurement, because you need to have very few metals, very high signal-to-noise data, very high resolution, and very strong r-process abundance, in order to be able to observe the uranium line. Anna needed 7.5hrs of VLT time to get a signal-to-noise ratio of about 350 or so...much higher than the S/N ~ 50-75 that we got from Magellan.

      You can get a pdf of the paper here. Check out Fig 2, which shows the relevant part of the spectrum, with the Uranium line. See how it's right next to the booming Fe line...that's why we need a low iron abundance to do this work.

  5. So let there be light by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Took 500 million years. So we should be able to work out how long God's days are!!!!

    --
    Deleted
  6. Re:I wonder by AbsoluteXyro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doubtful. All objects in the universe are moving away from each other. We know this because when we look up into the sky, everything is red shifted... which would seem to indicate that Earth is the center of the universe, but it is not.

    How is that possible? You can run a universal expansion experiment at home with a black magic marker and a balloon. First, blow up the balloon and draw a group of dots on it so that you can observe all the dots at once (don't draw dots on opposite sides of the balloon). Deflate the balloon. Now, choose a dot on the balloon, and watch it while you inflate the balloon. You will notice the dot remains stationary while all of the other dots move away from it. Deflate the balloon, choose another dot, and repeat the observation. You will see that this completely different spot also appears to remain stationary while all other dots move away from it. This is similar to what is happening with the expansion of the universe... and I would hazard a guess that such a mechanic makes pinpointing the origin nigh impossible.

  7. Re:the creationists will not like this by brit74 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've seen a lot of mental gymnastics going on with creationists. They might claim that things had the 'appearance of age' when they were created. For example (supposedly), Adam and Eve were created as full-grown human beings without childhoods. They use this same sort of argument with stars (although, it doesn't stand up as well since God would've had a reasonable motive for creating full-grown humans, the reason for creating other things with the appearance of age is not at all clear - unless God were trying to fool us). One of the *new* claims a few creationists have been making is that somehow relativity allows the rest of the universe to actually be 14 billion years old even though the universe was created 6,000 years ago. They claim that something like time-dilation allowed a single-day passed on earth while the rest of the universe aged 14 billion years. The moral of the story? If you have an immutable belief in something + an all powerful God that can do whatever He wants, then all other evidence can be bended or ignored in service of that single immutable belief. Want to believe that God created the universe 10 seconds ago? No problem: God created you with memories of events that never occurred 'earlier' in your life, old newspapers with realistic-sounding events, light from the stars and the Sun were created partway in transit to the earth, etc etc. God can do that 'cuz He's all-powerful, don't ya know?

  8. Re:the creationists will not like this by rbarreira · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Was that before or after punishing us for doing something which was his fault? Him being omnipotent and all, should have known what we were up to when he created us...

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  9. Re:the creationists will not like this by ozbird · · Score: 4, Funny

    A more likely scenario is that God had one hell (Hell?) of a bender the night before "The Beginning".
    "Let there be light." Eergh! (buries His head under the covers for a few hundred million years.)

  10. Re:I wonder by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

    I performed your experiment and discovered the answer to the question of whether the universe will continue to expand indefinitely, or one day begin collapsing inward. I solemnly report the existence of a unimaginably horrible third alternative, one that even at this relatively minor scale caused the cat to jump three feet in the air.

  11. Re:I wonder by Dontgimmiethatlook · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahh crap... Not good with HTML What I ment to say was "I believe that is what is refered to as the Big Rip Theory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

  12. Re:I wonder by zCyl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    wonder if the origin of the big bang could be pinpointed.

    If by "origin" you mean "point of origin", then we already have that answer. The big bang was not an explosion which occurred at one point in space, spewing matter and energy out everywhere. The big bang was a big explosion OF space, and spewed out a glob of space which began to expand, making points more distant from each other.

    So you cannot ask "where" the big bang occurred, because if you take all the points in space as far as can be seen, all of those points in space were at one single point at the moment of the big bang. So the best answer to "where" is "everywhere".
  13. Re:the creationists will not like this by wanerious · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You raise an excellent point. Fortunately, we astronomers have also thought of this. And the geologists before us.

    We have very good computer models of stellar evolution that compute yields of basically all the elements in the periodic table from core-collapse supernovae, which is the type of explosion that would generate all the elements above iron. These have been checked against observed abundances and agree very well. In addition, we have another independent check in that we can compare the ages derived through radiometric means to those derived from globular cluster ages. These also agree well. And, to further make the case, it was noted in the article that about 6 different species of radioactive isotopes were observed, so it would be very unusual for *all 6* isotopes to have an anomalous abundance in just the right way as to make the ages all agree. I've worked with a number of people in this sub-field; for what it's worth, they really seem to know what they're doing.

    I don't support modding religious people down merely because they disbelieve something, though I must say that, as a fellow Christian, it's distressing to see lots of non-specialists assume an air of superiority and bash a scientific field that they (in some cases even admit) they know basically nothing about. It's often charitable to assume that these scientists are, in most cases, very smart people who spend their whole professional lives engaged in the study of these phenomena. It is *highly* unlikely that any joe off the street is going to raise any intellectually serious issues that hadn't been thought of already. Scientists have the right authority to speak on behalf of their science. If you don't want to believe it, for whatever reason, that's up to you, though you might do well to *try* to understand why they say the things they do. It's fascinating stuff.

  14. Creation of the elements -- nucleosynthesis primer by Agent+Orange · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a little confusion about how the elements are created, and where HE1523 got all it's metals from...so here is a quick primer on the way things work.

    The big bang forms hydrogen, dueterium, some helium, and a tiny amount of lithium. In fact, the theory of what should be formed (called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), and what is observed, agree incredibly well.

    Most stars just burn hydrogen into helium, fusing the two hydrogen atoms. More massive stars burn hotter, and so they can ignite helium burning, forming carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. The hotter the star gets, the heavier things can be fused, all the way up to iron. All of these processes *release* energy, if you can get it hot enough to start the reaction.

    After iron, to make heavier elements you have to *put in* energy, so the way elements are formed is different. Instead of fusing two things together, you now just add a single neutron to the nucleus. This is a very different process (called neutron capture)...and can happen veeeery slowly (in stars) or very rapidly (in supernova explosions).

    So, uranium and thorium are both elements which are made in the rapid process (r-process) -- they are only made in supernova explosions...because in a supernova, the neutron density is very high, so catching one is more likely.

    Anyway...the point of all this is that, by observing uranium, we KNOW there had to have been at least one dying star going supernova, which made the uranium. Then that gas collapsed again later, to make anna's star.

    So far, no-one has yet managed to find a first-generation star, but it's a big area of research at the moment, and is one of the things anna is trying hard to find. By looking at these very old stars, we get a good picture of how a supernova works, because we see the product of ONLY ONE of them. With young stars, there might have been hundreds, all polluting the gas at different times...and disentangling that is really tough.

    As for the age of the universe, WMAP told us that very precisely -- 13.7Gyr (with an error of only ~0.1Gyr). The age we derived from HE1523 is much less precise...but nucleocosmochronometry (stellar age dating), is an incredibly tough thing to do, but it does offer independant confirmationg of the WMAP result.

  15. ATHF 2 by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    An ancient sun.

    An alien with a secret.

    An astronomer with a past.

    A galaxy thorn asunder.

    An astronaut on the edge.

    A hidden moon.

    A mythical planet.

    An ancient.. mythical.. secret.. planet sun guy.

    And a flaming chicken.

    In 2009, none of these things, happen in ATHF 2.
    Except the flaming chicken.

  16. Re:Don't take those Pastors & Darwins either.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's appalling how many people think Darwin's theory implies we (humans) evolved from apes. The actual theory is rather that humans and apes share a common ancestor, and so if you go back far enough, we were once a single species. Owing to variation within that species, however, it gradually split in two, by way of natural and sexual selection, with one branch evolving into apes whilst the other evolved into humans (and other, now extinct, branches).