PDA

View Full Version : First Light of the Universe?



Fraser
2005-Nov-02, 06:29 PM
SUMMARY: NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope might have captured images of the first stars in the Universe, glimpsing an era more than 13 billion years ago; a time when the glow of the Big Bang faded. A 10-hour observation by Spitzer's infrared camera array in the constellation Draco captured a diffuse glow of infrared light. It's believed this glow is coming from the first stars, more than a hundred times more massive than our Sun, which survived for only a few million years before exploding as the first supernovae.

View full article (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/first_light_universe.html)
What do you think about this story? post your comments below.

TravisM
2005-Nov-02, 06:47 PM
http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/11/2/1

Apparently Ned Wright thinks they're wrong about this. Check out CNN's science section.

FrostByte
2005-Nov-02, 07:11 PM
I personally think it's mindblowing! The first light of our universe. 13 BILLION year old...

This is what I like about astronomy: it's bigger than mankind can ever hope to understand.

ToSeek
2005-Nov-02, 07:37 PM
CNN article is here. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/11/02/early.stars.ap/index.html)

This is huge news if verified. Population III stars have been postulated for a very long time and are a key component of predictions of elemental composition of the universe. Steady staters have pointed this out as a gap in Big Bang theory, so filling this in is a big step.

cran
2005-Nov-02, 11:20 PM
Indeed. Roll on James Webb Space Telescope, and let's have a clearer look!

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Nov-04, 06:44 AM
It's hoped that Swift may see a gamma-ray burst associated with one of these stars going supernova. None has been seen, of course (the headlines would be awesome to behold), and to be honest we don't expect to see one. But we can hope... a z=20 GRB. Wow. How cool would that be?

Jerry
2005-Nov-07, 05:34 PM
http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/11/2/1

Apparently Ned Wright thinks they're wrong about this. Check out CNN's science section.
There have been several papers in archives - searches to pinpoint these stars based upon point infrared or radio sources - this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502304

Points out the the light excess in near infrared cannot be attributed to Pop III stars without screwing up the WMAP spectrum.

If we do not have a tight theory that explains the near infrared spectrum, it is premature to declare 'first light' victory.

Baby steps.

RussT
2005-Nov-08, 02:09 AM
The Bad Astronomer
Administrator
wrote;
[It's hoped that Swift may see a gamma-ray burst associated with one of these stars going supernova. None has been seen, of course (the headlines would be awesome to behold), and to be honest we don't expect to see one. But we can hope... a z=20 GRB. Wow. How cool would that be?]
__________________

[It's hoped that Swift may see a gamma-ray burst associated with one of these stars going supernova.]

Don't you mean "Hyper-Nova"???

[None has been seen, of course (the headlines would be awesome to behold), and to be honest we don't expect to see one]

Why wouldn't we expect to see one???...If we can see them (GRB's) (Very Brightly) at 12 billion light years away, why couldn't we see one at 13 billion light years???

There is a huge paradox here!

If the stars are going to provide the metalicity seen in mature galaxies at the farthest distances we can see, yet GRB Theory says that any stars this massive must be HyperNova's (No planetary nebula's), How can This Work???

The main point however, is that if there are stars this massive that far away...we definitely should have seen GRB's from this far away already!!!

If you would like to see what I am really talking about; GO TO:

ATM...Big Bang Most Correct 1st page.

RussT