PDA

View Full Version : Supernovas Created Dust at begining of Universe



altizar
2006-Jun-13, 02:14 PM
Did anybody else read this story and think are these people really serious about this?

Yes it makes half-way decent sense that this create dust at the begining of the universe, but that's only if you don't take the next logical step and come up with the fact of where the the stars that went super-nova come from?

For this "theory" to even come close to being viable, you have to accept the assumption that stars popped into existance fully formed from nothing. . .

I find it easier to believe that dust was a partial result of the big bang and spread through the universe in a non-homogenious fashion. . .

ToSeek
2006-Jun-13, 05:54 PM
Moved from "Bad Astronomy Stories" to "Astronomy."

ss002d6252
2006-Jun-13, 06:31 PM
Have you a link for that ?, please

Hamlet
2006-Jun-13, 06:40 PM
Did anybody else read this story and think are these people really serious about this?

Yes, I think their serious. I looks to me to be a nice piece of work.



Yes it makes half-way decent sense that this create dust at the begining of the universe, but that's only if you don't take the next logical step and come up with the fact of where the the stars that went super-nova come from?


They came from the primorial matter that was created during the Big Bang. Calculations for Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis) show that most of the primordial matter is in the form of hydrogen, helium and some trace amounts of lithium and beryllium. These first stars are referred to as Population III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_III_stars) stars and are theorized to be very massive. Massive stars "live fast and die young" ending their lives as supernovae and creating the heavier elements needed to form the dust that has been observed in the data. The search for remnants of these Population III stars is an ongoing concern which should be enhanced once the James Webb Space Telescope is operational.



For this "theory" to even come close to being viable, you have to accept the assumption that stars popped into existance fully formed from nothing. . .

You don't have to make this assumption at all. There was plenty of material to create the first stars from the primorial matter created in the BB.



I find it easier to believe that dust was a partial result of the big bang and spread through the universe in a non-homogenious fashion. . .

Elements heavier than lithium and beryllium were not created in the BB so that only leaves stars as the crucibles to forge these dust materials.

Hamlet
2006-Jun-13, 06:43 PM
Have you a link for that ?, please

I think this is the story Supernovae Generated the Universe’s Early Dust (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06/12/supernovae-generated-the-universes-early-dust/) .