Most Distant Galaxy Gives Clues to Early Universe 104
NinjaT writes "From CNN, 'Scientists said on Wednesday that they have found the most distant galaxy yet, nearly 13 billion light-years away, in a discovery that could help explain how stars were formed at the dawn of time.
The galaxy, named IOK-1, is so far away that the light waves that reached Earth depict it as the system of stars existed shortly after the Big Bang created the universe 13.66 billion years ago.
That period, known to astronomers as the Dark Ages, saw the formation of the first stars and galaxies from elementary particles. Scientists had been unable to directly observe that time period until now.'"
What I find difficult to understand (Score:2, Interesting)
I was thinking about matter and how it was created and what we have here on earth.
The sun is made up of mostly hydrogen, through nuclear fusion, these hydrogen atoms smash into each other and bind into helium. The helium, being heavier than the hydrogen sinks to the center of the sun (or somewhere in there). As the sun uses up its hydrogen fuel, it slowly changes itself into a helium-based star.
Since we are made of stardust, where do the elements ab
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Massive_stars [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What I find difficult to understand (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, simplifying somewhat, everything up to Iron gets created inside stars. The heavier elements (than iron) get created in end of life stellar events.
Simplifications here are that some elements get created inside the star in the last few days to hours of its life rather than over long periods of time and some heavier than iron but unstable elements get created before
Re: (Score:2)
Because in any meaningful sense, quantity of dark matter inside a star is zero.
Let me clarify what I mean by "zero". By my quick estimate about
Why? To the extent dark matter is gravitationally attracted to a star, it just passes ri
Re: (Score:1)
In 1056, there was a supernova bright enough and close enough that it was visible in the daytime sky. This was also a time when alchemists were still trying to learn how to turn lead into gold.
I wonder how many alchemists saw the "new star"-- not realizing that they were witnessing the very transformation they were seeking: since lead CAN be changed into gold-- it just requires (much, much) higher temperatures an
Re: (Score:2)
And no, element 82: lead [wikipedia.org] is actually heavier than element 79: gold [wikipedia.org], so you would have to remove protons and neutrons.
But thanks for playing, we have a lovely parting gift...
PS:
your == belonging to you
you're == "you are"
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if I measured intelligence in terms of snark, then I'd be forced to bow to your superior intellect.
However, it would seem that some sources disagree with you (search for "gold" on these pages):
I am not an astrophysisist, so it's possible there is more recent information I'm unaware of that makes this assertation out of d
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAA (I am not an astophysicist) but supernova explosions create most of the heavy elements. There should be a good writeup on wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When iron is done, it's over. The machinery stops. Suddenly. I.e. the pressure from insides stops, the star collapses VERY fast (within
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I think he meant supernova. Some stars can go nova many times without ending their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What I find difficult to understand (Score:5, Informative)
So - the elements above Helium come from normal fusion in a star; they don't have their own phases, everything just bumps into everything else at once. All your elements above iron have a greater fission energy than fusion energy, and with the amount of trigger radiation inside a star they don't generally last long. When they get ejected from a supernova, there's less to trigger them, so they stay stable for longer; that's why we have everything higher than iron, though even on earth they're in relatively minute quantities.
One last thing to point out is that your question about carbon seems odd - bear in mind that a carbon atom only has an atomic mass of 12, while iron has an atomic mass of 56. Carbon is relatively abundant compared to iron. To hazard a guess, if you laid the periodic table in a straight line you would probably see an approximately logarithmic amount of each element, up to iron and beyond; it'll be a little complicated since some elements are more likely to decay back to lighter elements faster than others, but that's the gist.
Disclaimer: this is all out of what I remember from courses; it may not be 100% accurate, though I believe it should clarify things enough.
Abundance of elements (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite right:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/abund.htm [seafriends.org.nz]
Some elements (Oxygen, Carbon, Neon) seem to form more easily than Lithium, Beryllium etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Evolution and planetary motion (Score:2)
Simple troll. Evolution is impacted by planetary motions, such as speed of rotation, distance from stars, etc. but does not grok the concept of 'backwards motion' - 'Backwards Motion' is an illusion based on conventions of human perception. Planets in motion around a star are seen as moving clockwise or counter clockwise de
Re: (Score:2)
Backwards rotating planets (such as Venus) are the result of collisions in the early solar system. Basically something hit it (hard) and spun it around. The same applies to Uranus (which rotates on it's side, though not backwards). A moon that rotates opposite of it's parent planet was likely a captured
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think I read that right now th
No bad analogy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also just a guess, but overly massive stars and accompanying supernovas would have have been much more common in the early universe. Combine that with a greatly reduced lifespan for these massive stars (last I heard the really big ones might have a life cycle measure by a couple dozen millions of years, rather than billions), a
The galaxy, named IOK-1 (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
I know cosmology is an inexact science but (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I know cosmology is an inexact science but (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's very, very old and emits red light? Sounds like they've just spotted the first ever brothel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFA doesn't say but I suspect they are not actually looking at pictures of the object. More likely a spectrum. Perhaps the acretion disk of a black hole has a similar spectrum to a young galaxy when using these instruments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So 'ow you s'posed to see 'em?"
</geek>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite science reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
I was well impressed by this guy confirming the Big Bang, and its precise timing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the exact origin of the universe and its date were still debated issues. We've changed the age of the universe enough times that you'd want to be wary about putting two decimal places in your statement.
Disclaimer: I'm not a creationist or one of the "evolution's a theory, not a fact" crowd, I just like my science to come appropriately qualified.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought this was a bit bold:
Considering that we are talking about the first billion years after the big bang.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A long time ago, (Score:2, Funny)
I finally made my first post, it's just now arriving from IOK-1.
--Not enough Bothans died to bring you this message.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
i dont think that's right. i dont know the math exactly, but i dont think 2 objects can be moving apart faster than the speed of light (unless space itself is expanding).
there's no difference between 2 objects moving in opposite directions and only 1 moving and the other standing still. if that were true, it would be the same as if one object stood still and the other moved at 160% the speed of light, which is impossible.
remember, as you move, time itself changes (relative to whatever object youre movin
relativity! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The relative velocity between two objects (in the case of parallel or antiparallel velocities) is given by:
v(rel) = ( w - v ) / ( 1 - ( ( w * v ) / c^2 ) )
Which means two objects, travelling in opposite directions at 0.80c, will have a velocity relative to each other of 0.98c.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. In this circumstance, a "stationary" observer sees both travelling at
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If a new star suddenly 'turns on' 10000 light years away from us, we're not going to see it until its light reaches us, 10000 years later. If that star burns out, there'll still be 10000 years worth of light already travelling towards us from it, so in our sky it will continue to shine for those 10000 years. Everyth
Re: (Score:2)
But
Re: (Score:1)
Distance Question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The oldest radiation that can reach us is from about 400 000 years after the big bang when atoms formed, which let light pass through and the universe became transparent.
Re: (Score:1)
13.7 billion years is the best guess at the age of the universe now. that light arriving at us now is depicting the galaxies as they were 13 billion years ago, very close to the big bang.
i believe that around 380,000 years ago is the earliest we'll be able to observe, because before then, the universe was so hot that it was opaque, and no light escaped without being abosorbed by other particles.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
oo you don't wanna be using a thing like that here! What you have to remember is that this galaxy we're viewing is in the same location that the big bang occured... and so are we.
Original article (Score:2)
I'd like to see science news announced here by quoting the original source rather than a news company.
Moo (Score:1)
Amazing how it is just taken as a fact.
How long was this light travelling? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't right. The "13 billion ly" is an unfortunately inaccurate, and probably meaningless number. It typically comes from plugging the value of the *redshift* of the galaxy (what is actually observed) into a particular cosmological model or, more commonly and naively, into simple Doppler redshift formulae. The distance of the galaxy at the time of e
Re: (Score:1)
I agree, but I didn't feel like taking on this assumption. I was simply stating that if something were indeed seen from 13 billion ly away, it would mean they were 13 billion ly away 13 billion years ago, when the light began travelling, as opposed to being 13 billion ly away right now. On the other hand, if the other galaxy is calculated to be 13 billion ly away now, it was much closer when the light we are now seeing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
If you're going to trivialize all values of distance to the point that they are meaningless, then you're a fool. It's certainly possible to say that variations in theoretical values (or entire cosmological models) could cause these values to be different, but the gist remains the same: the light left the other galaxy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'll try again --- we can basically agree on local values of distance because, for a receding car on the freeway, the light travel time between the car and us is much shorter than the increase in the distance of the car during this light travel time. On larger scales, where the increase in separation due to the expansion of the universe is still significantly less than light speed, it's no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I get the point of the thought experiment, it's just a really poor and misleading demonstration that something like special relativity must be true. Glancing at any elementary-level text will reveal many better thought experiments that utilize the correct conc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. This is what I'm saying --- it's *not* symmetrical. Only the ship is in an accelerating, non-inertial frame. Giving an observer in each frame the little box with a ball in the center, only the one on board the ship will move in response to its acceleration. Both observers will ag
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. It doesn't apply in that case. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not account for the motion of an electron in a magnetic field, but we shouldn't infer that there's anything wrong with the thermodynamics because of this. There are regimes where we should use results from SR, and regimes where we shouldn't.
That is why it is fully possible to model the planet moving and the ship sitting still
Nope. It's completely different
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously. You clearly haven't been paying any attention. I am referring to two ships which start at rest and move in mirroring ways. Each accelerates the same as the other, but in opposite directions. I've already given you two examples; I'm not going to explain again.
I'm starting to think you're nothing but a troll, or perhaps just an idiot who made a stupid comment and refuses to back down. Either way, this has clearly gotten pointless. If you really don't understand,
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I've had it. You've be
Re: (Score:2)