Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin

In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm BBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.
UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
cosmic time".

I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....

"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."

What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
Bang.


[Mod. note: the existing model of the evolution of massive stars is
not inconsistent with the idea that such a star died 630 million years
after the BB, having formed some time after it. The most massive stars
have very short lifetimes -- mjh]

On Oct 29, 1:52*pm, Morpheal wrote:
Inhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stmBBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.
UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
cosmic time".

I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....

"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."

What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
Bang.

[Mod. note: the existing model of the evolution of massive stars is
not inconsistent with the idea that such a star died 630 million years
after the BB, having formed some time after it. The most massive stars
have very short lifetimes -- mjh]

Sorry dude, but the larger a star is, the shorter its lifespan. This
can be expressed by the following equation:

E = mc^2.

Pretend our hypothetical sun only burns hydrogen (which is a
reasonable assumption, since this is one of the first stars). Thus,
the mass defect for H - He fusion is E = m_H * c^2 = 0.0286 * (1.66 x
10^-27) * (3.0 x 10^8)^2 = 4.3 x 10^-12 Joules.

Assuming our star is the largest star ever created gives it a
theoretical upper bound of 200 times the mass of our sun, thus the
total energy produced is E = (Helium mass defect) * c^2 * (total
available mass for fusion (which I assume is 10% of the mass of the
star)) = 0.0071 * (9.0x 10^16) * (200 * 0.1 * 10^30) = 2.5 x 10^46 J.

The Luminosity is given by the following:

log(L/L_{sun}) = n * log(M/M_{sun}), which, for a star 200 x the mass
of the sun yields L = 8 x 10^6. . Remember, n = 3, L = luminosity,
and M is the mass.

Thus, the total luminosity of the star is 8x 10^6 * sun's luminosity =
8 x 10^6 * 3.90 * 10^26 J s^-1 = 3.12 x 10^33 J s^-1, and hence, it's
lifespan is E/L = 2.5 x 10^46 J / 3.1 x 10^33 J s^-1 = 260,000 years.
That is quite a bit less then the 630 million years since the big
bang, more then enough time for the star to form, burn, and die.