Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronomers Have Spotted the Universe's First Molecule (sciencemag.org)

Posted by BeauHD on from the dawn-of-chemistry dept.

Astronomers have detected the universe's first molecule. "Helium hydride (HeH), a combination of helium and hydrogen, was spotted some 3000 light-years from Earth by an instrument aboard the airborne Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a telescope built into a converted 747 jet that flies above the opaque parts of Earth's atmosphere," reports Science Magazine. The findings have been reported in the journal Nature. From the report: HeH has long been thought to mark the "dawn of chemistry," as the remnants of the big bang cooled to about 4000 K and ions began to team up with electrons to form neutral atoms. Researchers believe that in that primordial gas, neutral helium reacted with hydrogen ions to form the first chemical bond joining the very first molecule. In 1925, chemists synthesized HeH in the lab. In the 1970s, theorists predicted that the molecule may exist today, most likely formed anew in planetary nebulae, clouds of gas ejected by dying sunlike stars. But decades of observations failed to find any, casting doubts on the theory.

To find the elusive molecule, astrochemists search for characteristic frequencies of light it emits, particularly a spectral line in the far infrared typically blocked by Earth's atmosphere. But a far-infrared spectrometer aboard SOFIA allowed them to find that signature for the first time, in a planetary nebula called NGC 7027, the researchers report today in Nature. The result shows this unlikely molecule -- involving typically unreactive helium -- can be created in space. With this cornerstone confirmed, it appears that the evolution of the following 13 billion years of chemistry stands on firmer ground.

71 comments

  1. all I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heh...

    1. Re: all I can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Evil, we have found the first molecule.
      That's very good son, why don't you take the day off and take Mr. Bigglesworth for a walk. And see if you can locate one of those skinny lattes I keep hearing about. I'm looking after my girlish figure, I am. Yes. (Evil laughter)

    2. Re: all I can say is by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      We can sell it for ... one ... million ... dollars!

  2. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Astronomers find a molecule 3000 light years away, meanwhile I can't find the remote control which is somewhere on the same sofa I'm sat on

    1. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Made in China, no doubt.

    2. Re: Meanwhile by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Funny

      Made in China, no doubt.

      The sofa... or the molecule?

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were listen to China they'd say both, if they thought you'd believe it.

    4. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Made in China, no doubt.

      The original molecule would have fallen apart a long, long time ago if it were made in China.

      The half-life of Chinesium is measured in days if not hours.

    5. Re:Meanwhile by maroberts · · Score: 1

      I have solved this by buying 3 TVs of the same type. I can always find at least one remote control and as a bonus there are also fun and games to be had when my partner is watching something in another room.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    6. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...since ancient times.

    7. Re:Meanwhile by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      That says more about you compared to the average astronomer.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. imagining seeing ghosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    onset due to need, spiritual voidishness? also have to imagine we carry on after this gig possibly doing return engagements? as the real 'ghosts' don't really live here anymore, they may appear vaporous when dimension hopping? it's comforting to imagine we last forever? there's more evidence of that then the hellish before & after burn we suffer in our modern media based wmd on credit Contrived Constant Conflict tome? cease fire stand down,, there's moms & babys in every town.. some still calling this 'weather'? in our own image? thanks again..

  4. I don't believe it by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's a big universe and there's a lot of HeH molecules out there. How do they know this is the first one?

    (...and how do they even see a molecule from 3000 light years away? This "discovery" is very implausible to me)

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:I don't believe it by lalleglad · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should try to read the text again, where it says in the last paragraph that they look for the spectral lines that shows what molecules are present.
      It isn't the actual first HeH molecule, because that would be impossible to determine, so read it as the 'first type of molecule', ie. a combination of different types of atoms, where H and He were the first.

    2. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people only see the headlines, or at most skim the article, and that's why misleading science headlines (or any headline) are bad.

    3. Re:I don't believe it by RobinH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I would have though H2 would be the first molecule.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    4. Re:I don't believe it by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      so read it as the 'first type of molecule', ie. a combination of different types of atoms,

      Hmm, that's not the definition of molecule *I* was taught in school.

      And oddly enough, that's not the definition of molecule I find in dictionaries, online or offline....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's clickbait.

    6. Re:I don't believe it by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a big universe and there's a lot of HeH molecules out there. How do they know this is the first one?

      (...and how do they even see a molecule from 3000 light years away? This "discovery" is very implausible to me)

      Well considering the universe is 6000 years old and the earth is at the center of creation I would think it's obvious. Plus God gave me a certificate of authenticity. She's nice like that.

    7. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Compound rather than molecule

    8. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it embossed?

    9. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I would have though H2 would be the first molecule.

      The thinking is that by this time when such atoms could form, the universe was still in a state where molecules were hindered from forming as they do naturally today.

      A search term for you is recombination era

      I'm not going to pretend I understand the goings on, but a quick summary says the universe expanding caused a very low density of those atoms, and there was a lack of solid catalyzers to help form molecules.
      Apparently the radiation came into play to conspire against molecules forming too.

      So in that particular time and state HeH+ is predicted to be more common and likely than H2

    10. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA: With their higher ionization potentials, the helium ions He2+ and He+ were the first to combine with free electrons, forming the first neutral atoms; the recombination of hydrogen followed. In this metal-free and low-density environment, neutral helium atoms formed the Universe’s first molecular bond in the helium hydride ion HeH+ through radiative association with protons. As recombination progressed, the destruction of HeH+ created a path to the formation of molecular hydrogen.

    11. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try to read the text again, where it says in the last paragraph that they look for the spectral lines that shows what molecules are present. It isn't the actual first HeH molecule, because that would be impossible to determine, so read it as the 'first type of molecule', ie. a combination of different types of atoms, where H and He were the first.

      Then perhaps we should reword the title then, instead of making it sound like we found the residual methane from the Fart of Jesus.

    12. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's why many people are bad. Reading a headline and thinking they know stuff.
      Are you WindBourne by chance?

    13. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should try to read the text again, where it says in the last paragraph that they look for the spectral lines that shows what molecules are present.
      It isn't the actual first HeH molecule, because that would be impossible to determine, so read it as the 'first type of molecule', ie. a combination of different types of atoms, where H and He were the first.

      WHOOOOOSH!!!!!

    14. Re:I don't believe it by capt_peachfuzz · · Score: 1

      It may have been initially too hot for H2 to form. The underlying report indicates that HeH+ was the first molecule and that molecular hydrogen (H2) followed.

    15. Re:I don't believe it by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Compound rather than molecule

      All compounds are molecules (but not vice versa.)

    16. Re:I don't believe it by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      And by that definition then Helium Hydride would be a compound, too.

    17. Re:I don't believe it by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      IIRC, it would have been too early for first generation stellar nucleosynthesis to generate oxygen.

    18. Re:I don't believe it by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You should try to read the text again, where it says in the last paragraph that they look for the spectral lines that shows what molecules are present.
      It isn't the actual first HeH molecule, because that would be impossible to determine, so read it as the 'first type of molecule', ie. a combination of different types of atoms, where H and He were the first.

      I have to read the headline in a special way that changes its meaning? How do I know to do that?

      We can detect single photons and every photon comes from inside a single atom. In theory you can detect single molecules by their emissions at any distance. This just leaves the question of how they know this molecule is "the one".

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:I don't believe it by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      It isn't the actual first HeH molecule, because that would be impossible to determine

      Concluding its chemical composition when there are proceedings, devices, experiments undoubtedly telling so is certainly science. Proposing some plausible theories about why or when it firstly got there can also be considered science, part of the scientific process, of wondering, proposing and dismissing alternatives. But undoubtedly concluding that what can't be proven has to be in certain way would be pretty much the opposite to science. What self-respecting scientist could do such a thing?

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    20. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha! Hardly anyone seems to have got this joke, which also occurred to me when I saw the headline.

    21. Re:I don't believe it by Phics · · Score: 1

      Seemed to me that the AC was trying to correct RobinH's comment about H2. If that's the case, the AC is wrong, since H2 is NOT a compound, (there is just one type of atom in H2).

      --
      There are two types of people in the world; those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don't.
    22. Re:I don't believe it by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Your reasoning (and mine) is probably that hydrogen is the simplest atom, and you need hydrogen to fuse inside stars to form helium. Ergo there should have been lots of hydrogen around to form H2 before helium showed up.

      But double-checking the cosmology, apparently there was enough energy in the big bang to form substantial amounts of helium along with the hydrogen. So the two atoms existed together before stars began forming. And the bonding energies mean HeH was easier to form in that environment than H2 or He2.

    23. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if we could only work together as well as atoms, molecules, micro-organisms and cells do!

    24. Re:I don't believe it by PPH · · Score: 1

      residual methane from the Fart of Jesus

      Lost in the Notre-dame fire.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    25. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have cancer you insensitive clod!

    26. Re:I don't believe it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I thought that at first. But the temperature range typically given for the condensation of hydrogen nuclii and electrons into monatomic hydrogen (the formation of what is now the cosmic microwave background, after around 40x stretching of space) is at several thousands of K, which would be in the orange- to green- hot temperature range. To allow something to form with an absorption band in the "far IR", you'd need to drop the temperature to somewhere below a thousand K.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    27. Re:I don't believe it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I have to read the headline in a special way that changes its meaning? How do I know to do that?

      Where things don't quite seem to add up, and you have reason to suspect the involvement of journalists who are journalists, not scientists. Then you have to read much more carefully. Sad, but true.

      Reading press releases or commentary instead of the actual paper is normally a waste of time and electrons if you actually want to understand the science.

      The paper in question is here, but you'll need either access to Nature to read it, or access to Sci-hub to read it.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:I don't believe it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      To quote the abstract, not the press release, "During the dawn of chemistry, when the temperature of the young Universe had fallen below some 4,000 kelvin, the ions of the light elements produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis recombined in reverse order of their ionization potential. With their higher ionization potentials, the helium ions He2+ and He+ were the first to combine with free electrons, forming the first neutral atoms; the recombination of hydrogen followed. In this metal-free and low-density environment, neutral helium atoms formed the Universeâ(TM)s first molecular bond in the helium hydride ion HeH+ through radiative association with protons." (My emphasis added)

      What self-respecting scientist could do such a thing?

      The scientists didn't. A journalist wrote the confusing phrases.

      No, scientists don't (generally) write press releases for their publications. They leave that to journalists, who might even be writing in their native tongues. Having spent an hour transliterating some French into English just after breakfast, I can understand why they leave that job to journalists.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    29. Re:I don't believe it by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Where things don't quite seem to add up, and you have reason to suspect the involvement of journalists who are journalists, not scientists. Then you have to read much more carefully. Sad, but true.

      How do you know the correct interpretation. That sounds like religion - everybody "interpreting" instead of just looking at the words written on the page.

      --
      No sig today...
    30. Re:I don't believe it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      In the case of uncertainty, go to the original paper. That is why they are published, reviewed before publication, consulted between authors and colleagues (often also competitors in the field with the original authors). All things that don't happen in the journalism industry.

      I mean, if you think it sounds like religion, then I'd say "If I wanted to know what a Roman-era Jew said, I'd look for documents written in the Roman era by people with at least some possibility of actually having been within a few generations of being witnesses." I wouldn't waste my time with something translated through several languages from the speaker's original, a millennium and a half later.

      Of course, if I felt the need to actually research that stuff, I'd learn a lot more of the relevant languages than I have already. But I'm working on languages in 3 different groups at the moment, and I think that's far more important.

      Yes, I find paywalls around academic publishing to be damned annoying. I spend almost £200/year for access to a chunk of "the literature", and for the rest, there's Sci-Hub

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    31. Re:I don't believe it by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      The scientists didn't. A journalist wrote the confusing phrases.

      I guessed so. I also agree with the rest of your post about the most probable source of miscommunication in the scientific world. I have no problem with journalists and do understand that they are just doing their job under non-ideal conditions (trying to address the consumerist-, impacting-headlines-, marketing-driven funding and societal expectations without having a particularly deep understanding of the given issues).

      My previous post was just a generic statement expected to eventually help some people to understand certain concepts. It wasn't exactly related to this specific article. I rarely do things of this sort, but desperate times call for desperate measures :)

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    32. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to read the headline in a special way that changes its meaning? How do I know to do that?

      Because you were interested enough in science, you should have understood it. If you didn't then maybe your aren't and are just trolling?

    33. Re:I don't believe it by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      It's one of the aspects of the oft-complained about "lack of critical thinking". Which goes with "journalists" being ... well, as my now-deceased friend and a part-time lecturer in Journalism after running news rooms for 30-plus years would say, "staff writers". Journalists do take the time to check the sources, read the surrounding documents, and think carefully about their articles. Someone who has to turn out something to garner 3000-ad clicks or there is no food on the table tonight ... a writer yes, but not a journalist.

      Having said that, I've just been doing the diagrams to go with another submission, because I do have the (enforced) leisure time to do this sort of work.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. What big bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The universe is expanding so....

    Mk1: There must have been a bang somehow
    Mk2: OK, so that wouldn't work, the big bang must have had an initial inflation
    Mk3: OK, so the rate of expansion is increasing, so the big bang must be a 5th dimensional explosion creating space time that only we can see the first 3 dimensions of because we're on the surface of the explosion bubble.

    Can you name a two dimensional thing in our 3 dimensional world? If there is nothing limited to 2 dimensions in our 3 dimensions, then why do you imagine it would be possible to hide higher dimensions in 3 dimensional space? How would this bubble work in reality? How would we not be able to see the extra dimensions, what barrier would separate our 3 from other dimensions.... wishful thinking? A need to fixup a theory because it was popular? What exactly?

    Look, velocity is wave surfing over a resonant electromagnetic field.
    It's between zero and 1W (the local resonant wavelength). i.e. 0 to speed of light
    The difference between the resonant point, and the velocity is the energy.
    Light is at the 1W per oscillation resonance point, its energy is from it traveling *slower* than this resonance point.
    Matters is travelling at 0W per oscillation, its energy (momentum) is the difference between the zero resonance point and its velocity.

    Light slows inside glass, so the local W inside the glass is shorter.
    And if you shine it along the face of the glass it bends, so the shorter field extends outside of glass.
    The further away from the face of the glass, the less it bends. So W, the local resonant wavelength is longer the further away from matter you get.

    So the thinner the matter, the longer the W.

    So a galaxy travelling at 0.1W per oscillation, will appear to accelerate as matter gets thinner. Just as light (at 1W per oscillation) 'accelerates' when it leaves the glass.

    1. Re:What big bang? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can you name a two dimensional thing in our 3 dimensional world?

      A shadow intersecting a surface.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:What big bang? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Only if the surface in question is a plane.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:What big bang? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      A surface is always two dimensional, even if it's a manifold embedded in a higher dimensional space (which any surface is in the real world, plane or curved).

  6. ghosts protesting malevolent imaging by media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    it had to happen? using the the rejection prior to investigation & (emotional) taxation without representation santa anita clauses..

  7. Helium and Hydrogen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd say it wasn't particularly noble of Helium to hook-up with lowly Hydrogen. Not by a long shot.

  8. casper investigations re-opened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    portrayal as a vandalistic girlslave just at the surface of misinformation associated with this action?

    next; was thumper set up to take the fall?

  9. HeH-HeH. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hey, Butt-Head, what's a 'HeH' molecule? HeH-HeH."
    "UuuuuuuhhheHeH..."

  10. The Nature article is about HeH+ by gotan · · Score: 1

    ... i.e. a He+ ion plus neutral H forming a positive HeH+ ion. That's quite different from neutral HeH.

    Also while they found HeH+ in that nebula that's not some remnant from the big bang (as far as i understand), but it's interesting to look at the HeH+ in NGC7027 to compare our modeling of reactions involving HeH+ to the astronomical observations.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
    1. Re:The Nature article is about HeH+ by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Chemists have been making HeH+ in the lab since the 1920s.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  11. How did the ions get there? by johnsie · · Score: 1

    Where did the components of these molecules come from? How did they get there?

    1. Re:How did the ions get there? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Big bang nucleosynthesis

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:How did the ions get there? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen (H+) is just a proton. Helium (He+) is two protons. (if you want to get into isotopes we can involve neutrons but I digress). In short these are about as simple as you can get while being more than elementary particles.

    3. Re:How did the ions get there? by cfa22 · · Score: 1

      He+ also has a single electron.

    4. Re:How did the ions get there? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      He-3 (proton+proton+neutron) is the lowest stable nucleus of Helium. I don't have a figure off-hand for the half-life of the di-proton (proton+proton) with respect to decaying to a deuteron (proton+neutron) plus electron plus neutrino, but it's probably not as long as the half life of the hydrogen atom compared to the hydrogen ion, in the plasma conditions we're talking about. Probably not by many orders of magnitude - weak force interactions tend to be a lot quicker than electromagnetic ones.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  12. The Expanse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is the protomolecule .... it is coming for us.....

  13. Now draw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rest of the fucking Owl

  14. Everyone knows that the first molecule was... by That+YouTube+Guy · · Score: 2

    Bacon.

  15. Ah! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    So that's where I left it!

  16. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should try to read

    Finally, somebody who understands the difference between "try to [verb]" (correct English) and "try and [verb]" (nonsensical). Now let's get somebody who understands the difference between adverbs and adjectives.

    1. Re:Finally by lalleglad · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I am honoured by the praise, especially as I learned English in school, as a foreign language!
      I'll see if I can do well on your request for people who can see the difference between adverbs and adjectives ;-)

  17. only 3000? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    The furthest known star is 13.26 billion light-years from earth. I would bet that there are more than a few HeH+ molecules there, seeing that stars are made up of Hydrogen and Helium. Why only 3000 light years?

    1. Re:only 3000? by tralfaz2001 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I had the same reaction, until I figured out what they meant. They are not saying those particular molecules are the oldest, but molecules of this type had to be the first created in the universe. Assuming H atoms formed first, then those formed He atoms, and then those combined into HeH, since that was all that existed.

  18. Adorable by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Ahhh, baby universe molecules, they're so cuuute! bi bi bi gootchi gootchi goo...

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  19. Call customer support by tomhath · · Score: 1

    No doubt the location of your remote is being tracked in a database in Beijing