Star is Found to be 13.2 Billion Years Old

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-23-07.html

quote
Using ESO's VLT, astronomers recently measured the age of a star located
in our Galaxy. The star, a real fossil, is found to be 13.2 billion
years old, not very far from the 13.7 billion years age of the Universe.
The star, HE 1523-0901, was clearly born at the dawn of time.

"Surprisingly, it is very hard to pin down the age of a star", the lead
author of the paper reporting the results, Anna Frebel, explains. "This
requires measuring very precisely the abundance of the radioactive
elements thorium or uranium, a feat only the largest telescopes such as
ESO's VLT can achieve."

Actual age measurements are restricted to the very rare objects that
display huge amounts of the radioactive elements thorium or uranium,"
says Norbert Christlieb, co-author of the report.

Large amounts of these elements have been found in the star HE
1523-0901, an old, relatively bright star that was discovered within the
Hamburg/ESO survey [1]. The star was then observed with UVES on the Very
Large Telescope (VLT) for a total of 7.5 hours.

end quote

OK. This star is 13.2 billion years old. Only 500 million years away
from the famous big bang.

But at the time of its birth, this star already had uranium and thorium,
the rests of them being measured today. This means that this star
benefited from previous generations of stars that produced those
elements in sufficient amounts to concentrate them so highly at the
site of this star birth so that they would be there 13.2 billion years
later.

This means that quite a few generations of heavy elements producing
stars passed away.

All of this in only less than 500 million years?

Big bang theory is sinking quite fast. More and more evidence point
to much bigger time frames than those ridiculous 13.7 billion years.

This is yet another data point against BB theory.

References
----------
quote
This research is reported in a paper published in the 10 May issue of
the Astrophysical Journal ("Discovery of HE 1523-0901, a Strongly
r-Process Enhanced Metal-Poor Star with Detected Uranium", by A. Frebel
et al.).
end quote

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Using ESO's VLT, astronomers recently measured the age of a star located
in our Galaxy. The star, a real fossil, is found to be 13.2 billion
years old, not very far from the 13.7 billion years age of the Universe.
The star, HE 1523-0901, was clearly born at the dawn of time.

Actual age measurements are restricted to the very rare objects that
display huge amounts of the radioactive elements thorium or uranium,"
says Norbert Christlieb, co-author of the report.

Large amounts of these elements have been found in the star HE
1523-0901, an old, relatively bright star that was discovered within the
Hamburg/ESO survey [1]. The star was then observed with UVES on the Very
Large Telescope (VLT) for a total of 7.5 hours.

OK. This star is 13.2 billion years old. Only 500 million years away
from the famous big bang.

But at the time of its birth, this star already had uranium and thorium,
the rests of them being measured today. This means that this star
benefited from previous generations of stars that produced those
elements in sufficient amounts to concentrate them so highly at the
site of this star birth so that they would be there 13.2 billion years
later.

This means that quite a few generations of heavy elements producing
stars passed away.

The more massive a star, the faster it runs out of fuel for fusion. So
fast, in fact, that it more than makes up for its larger supply of fuel.
In other words, the more massive a star, the shorter its lifetime.
Really massive stars are a) only around for a million years or so and b)
always end in a type-II supernova, distributing the heavy elements they
have made so that the next generation of stars can pick them up.

All of this in only less than 500 million years?

Where's the problem? I see room for 500 generations. :-)

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply a =E9crit :
In article , jacob navia
writes:=20
=20
All of this in only less than 500 million years?
=20
Where's the problem? I see room for 500 generations. :-)

Well, a 60 solar masses stars lives for 3 million years...
And, right after the presumed "bang", there is a lapse of time of
380 000 years until the stuff has cooled enough to separate
radiation and matter, so I would say the first few million years
are not *really* good for star formation...

This game can go on only until we find a star older than
13.7 billion years. It will suffice only one star like that to
definitely put the BB in the grave.

Finding those stars is difficult since they are small, smaller than the
sun.

This search has only started recently, when our telescopes have
improved.

Just stay tuned.

jacob

jacob navia wrote:

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-23-07.html

Using ESO's VLT, astronomers recently measured the age of a star located
in our Galaxy. The star, a real fossil, is found to be 13.2 billion
years old, not very far from the 13.7 billion years age of the Universe.
The star, HE 1523-0901, was clearly born at the dawn of time.

Was there any information about the position of this star within Milky Way?

Finding those stars is difficult since they are small, smaller than the
sun.

One found a for exolife well temperatured planet around a red dwarf at
distance only of 20.5*light-years from planet Earth. So if this red dwarf
burns slowly, the chance of getting life on the planet is much bigger,
then. One found some*bacteria that survived a stay in a camera on the
Moon. And one has discovered that first life on Earth was formed fairly
soon after it cooled down enough. So if*bacteria can survive travel in
space, it may give plenty of time for*bacteria from this planet to move to
the Earth, to be present when it has been cooled down enough.

Hans Aberg

On 13 May, 08:59, jacob navia wrote:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-23-07.html

quote
Using ESO's VLT, astronomers recently measured the age of a star located
in our Galaxy. The star, a real fossil, is found to be 13.2 billion
years old, not very far from the 13.7 billion years age of the Universe.
The star, HE 1523-0901, was clearly born at the dawn of time.

"Surprisingly, it is very hard to pin down the age of a star", the lead
author of the paper reporting the results, Anna Frebel, explains. "This
requires measuring very precisely the abundance of the radioactive
elements thorium or uranium, a feat only the largest telescopes such as
ESO's VLT can achieve."

Actual age measurements are restricted to the very rare objects that
display huge amounts of the radioactive elements thorium or uranium,"
says Norbert Christlieb, co-author of the report.

Large amounts of these elements have been found in the star HE
1523-0901, an old, relatively bright star that was discovered within the
Hamburg/ESO survey [1]. The star was then observed with UVES on the Very
Large Telescope (VLT) for a total of 7.5 hours.

end quote

OK. This star is 13.2 billion years old. Only 500 million years away
from the famous big bang.

"After" rather than "away from" would be clearer.

But at the time of its birth, this star already had uranium and thorium,

Where did you see that?

the rests of them being measured today.

That's all the article actually says. The star is in our galaxy
so probably less than 100,000 light years away, and the
elements are measured at their present levels. The star has
had 13.2 billion years to produce them.

Big bang theory is sinking quite fast. ...

You seem to be reading what you want to see and not what
was written.

George

wrote:
On 13 May, 08:59, jacob navia wrote:

OK. This star is 13.2 billion years old. Only 500 million years away
from the famous big bang.


"After" rather than "away from" would be clearer.


Yes. It was a mental typo. Excuse me.


But at the time of its birth, this star already had uranium and thorium,


Where did you see that?


the rests of them being measured today.


That's all the article actually says. The star is in our galaxy
so probably less than 100,000 light years away, and the
elements are measured at their present levels. The star has
had 13.2 billion years to produce them.


This is wrong. Uranium and other heavy elements are produced
in the supernova explosions, when a star dies. Since the star
is there, it has never produced uranium or thorium.

But I may be wrong of course. Please explain how a small star
(smaller than our sun) produces uranium.


Big bang theory is sinking quite fast. ...


You seem to be reading what you want to see and not what
was written.


Of course. Please explain first how that star produces uranium.

Thanks

On 14 May, 16:33, jacob navia wrote:
wrote:
On 13 May, 08:59, jacob navia wrote:

OK. This star is 13.2 billion years old. Only 500 million years away
from the famous big bang.

"After" rather than "away from" would be clearer.

Yes. It was a mental typo. Excuse me.



But at the time of its birth, this star already had uranium and thorium,

Where did you see that?

the rests of them being measured today.

That's all the article actually says. The star is in our galaxy
so probably less than 100,000 light years away, and the
elements are measured at their present levels. The star has
had 13.2 billion years to produce them.

This is wrong. Uranium and other heavy elements are produced
in the supernova explosions, when a star dies. Since the star
is there, it has never produced uranium or thorium.

But I may be wrong of course. Please explain how a small star
(smaller than our sun) produces uranium.

No, you are right of course, I shouldn't rush a post off in my
coffee break!

Noting your response to Phillip's answer, aren't Pop III stars
expected to have a significant population in the 100 to 200
solar mass range (from memory). Their lifetimes would be
short in comparison to the age discussed.

My apologies for the error,
George

I would like to add several points to my message

1) 500 million years may look enough for several generations
of stars but it isn't. At 400 000 years after the supposed
"bang", the universe's temperature was still 30 000 K (the
time when the CMB was emitted). 30 000 K is just too much
to have a condensation of cold gas clouds into stars for sure.

A period called romantically "the dark ages" ensued, that has a
variable length between 200 up to 700 million years depending
on the sources. WMAP sets it at 200 million years. I cite:

quite
NASA Mission Reveals End of Universe's 'Dark Ages,'Fate of Universe
and Amount of Dark Matter in Universe

Date: February 13, 2003
Contact: Stuart Wolpert ( )
Phone: 310-206-0511

The universe had a period of "Dark Ages," starting approximately
half-a-million years after the Big Bang, and NASA's Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has revealed the end of the Dark
Ages.

"We detected the end of the Dark Ages about 200 million years after
the Big Bang," said Edward L. Wright, professor of astronomy at UCLA,
who helped develop key data analysis techniques for WMAP.
end quote

OK, then we have not 500 million years but only 300 million to make
the uranium.


2) This star is in our galaxy. This does not necessarily mean that the
galaxy is 13.2 billion years old. Our galaxy could have swallowed a
smaller and older galaxy containing this star eons ago, and that star
would be older than the galaxy where it now lives.

In any case however, it could also be the case that our galaxy was
there, and that it produced small stars like this one.

3) We are always hearing from BB people that the first stars were
massive. Not so. This is a small, run of the mill star.

I am confident that the better scopes that we have now will find stars
much older than 13.7 billion years.

jacob

In article , jacob navia
wrote:

I am confident that the better scopes that we have now will find stars
much older than 13.7 billion years.

So if that does occur, what happens with the Big Bang theories? Can they
become adjusted, to give an older universe, or will they go away with a
Big Bang (or possibly a "Small Puff")? :-)

Hans Aberg

Thus spake "
But at the time of its birth, this star already had uranium and thorium,

Where did you see that?

the rests of them being measured today.

That's all the article actually says. The star is in our galaxy so
probably less than 100,000 light years away, and the elements are
measured at their present levels. The star has had 13.2 billion years
to produce them.

That's not the way it works. These elements are produced in supernova
explosions. Thereafter they gradually decay. Once a star forms, they
don't get mixed with gas from new SN explosions, and one can measure
from the ratio of the element to the decay product how long the star has
been in existence.

As Philips says, with stars reckoned to have formed in excess of 100Msun
from the metal free gases after the big bang, there was loads of time
for quite a few generations of stars and SN to create the elements.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email