In a Galaxy Far, Far Away...

Nov 06, 2009
After the big bang, the universe cools rapidly while expanding. This schematic shows the probable location of the most distant object ever found, a gamma ray burst that occurred about 630 million years after the big bang. Credit: Nature, as adapted from Bennett et al. 2005

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers have published the discovery of the farthest known object in the cosmos: a star that exploded when the universe was only 630 million years old -- only 4.6% of its current age. Light from this cataclysm had been traveling towards us for about 13 billion years, finally arriving here last April 23.

It was spotted only because the was bright -- it emitted as much energy in its final moments as the sun emits in about a billion years of life -- and of course because astronomers had been searching for just such activity.

The explosion was from a (GRB). The brightest events in the known universe, GRBs occur about once a day, randomly, from around the sky; most of them shine for minutes -- relatively short times -- and are found in the midst of . They are thought to be produced in extreme kinds of supernovae, the explosive deaths of . Scientists study GRBs not only to understand the nature of these dramatic explosions and the final moments of a giant star's life, but also because GRBs are cosmic beacons that can be seen from very far away.

CfA Edo Berger is a member of a large team of international scientists who report in this week's Nature on the discovery of the most distant GRB -- and the most distant object of any kind -- that is known. The burst itself was spotted by NASA's , a mission designed specifically to find these fleeting events and to facilitate quick follow-up observations. The team then used five ground-based telescopes with different instruments to stare at the precise location in the sky where the GRB occurred, hoping to detect the aftermath of the explosion. They found nothing in the optical, but they were able to detect a glow at several . Such a very red color is characteristic of an object at cosmological distances, and the team's measurements were sufficiently precise that they could locate it, with a formal uncertainty of less than one percent, to a time when the universe was very young.

The results are exciting because they extend our direct knowledge of the early cosmos back into an era that otherwise is rather mysterious. It is not known, for example, whether stars at these early epochs would even produce conventional GRBs or supernovae; they might instead be so unlike stars in our current environment, lacking in many of the chemical elements that were produced over eons of time, that their properties would be strange. The new paper, besides describing the discovery, presents evidence to tentatively suggest that at least this particular star and its dramatic demise do seem to resemble cases found in the more familiar, local universe.

More information: Blast from the Past Gives Clues About Early Universe

Provided by Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (news : web)

Explore further: Staying warm: The hot gas in clusters of galaxies

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Blast from the Past Gives Clues About Early Universe

Oct 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope have gained tantalizing insights into the nature of the most distant object ever observed in the ...

Ferreting Out The First Stars

Sep 22, 2005

What did the very first stars look like? How did they live and die? Astronomers have ideas, but no proof. The first stars are so distant and formed so long ago that they are invisible to our best telescopes. Until the ...

Death of massive star creates brightest burst ever seen

Mar 20, 2008

Gamma-Ray Bursts are the most powerful explosive events in the Universe. They occur in far-off galaxies and so are usually faint. But on the morning of March 19th 2008 the Swift satellite found a burst which ...

Earth is safe from gamma-ray bursts, Hubble finds

May 10, 2006

A gamma-ray burst (GRB) occurring in our own galaxy could decimate life on Earth, destroying the ozone layer, triggering climate change and drastically altering life’s evolution. However, the good news is ...

Recommended for you

Staying warm: The hot gas in clusters of galaxies

13 hours ago

Most galaxies lie in clusters, groupings of a few to many thousands of galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy itself is a member of the "Local Group," a band of about fifty galaxies whose other large member is the ...

A colorful gathering of middle-aged stars

Nov 26, 2014

NGC 3532 is a bright open cluster located some 1300 light-years away in the constellation of Carina(The Keel of the ship Argo). It is informally known as the Wishing Well Cluster, as it resembles scattered ...

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Question
3 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2009
quote from article:
"The new paper, besides describing the discovery, presents evidence to tentatively suggest that at least this particular star and its dramatic demise do seem to resemble cases found in the more familiar, local universe."

Could it just be that the universe is the same today as it was yesterday and the observed red-shift is just an optical illusion?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2009
Red shift varies with distance as far out as we measure with the best standard standard candles available. Different candles give similar results as well. Therefor it is unlikely to be an illusion. At least for several billion light years out.

Ethelred
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2009
Could it just be that the universe is the same today as it was yesterday and the observed red-shift is just an optical illusion?

If you can offer a sound procedure which produces this kind of illusion people will discuss your idea.
Question
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2009
It would be nice if I could but the method is a little to complicated to post in this limited space. The following link explains a way light could be red-shifted along with a test:

http://www.scribd...-Physics
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2009
You wrote that? I was going to be less polite till I checked your profile.

Still it is hard to contain myself. The Crankery is stunning. I have never seen anything on this site before that was quite so out of touch.

You actually say:
particles with mass that contain even trace amounts of heat


Which shows that you simply have no clue about heat. None whatsoever.

Heat is NOT contained it particles. It is the KINETIC energy of particles. That is movement of particles. Yet you wrote that as if the movement and heat of particles were two completely separate things.

My jaw dropped on that one.

Yes, my first pass was even less tolerant.

Please take a physics class.

http://en.wikiped...iki/Heat

Ethelred
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2009
The following link explains a way light could be red-shifted along with a test:

http://www.scribd...-Physics

41 pages of text to explain all four fundamental forces without one single mathematical formula. Gravity is explained by
We need to take another look at the basic particles everything in the universe is made of. When these basic particles collide, they exchange linear momentum if they have opposite spins. They must exchange linear and angular momentum if they collide with the same spins. It takes one extra quanta second of time to exchange linear and angular momentum. In the one quanta second that the angular momentum is exchanged, one quanta of mass and time are created. This time is directly involved in the creation of the force of gravity.

I'm impressed.
Question
1 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2009
Ethelred: I agree with you. Heat and kinetic energy are intimately related. Heat is stored kinetic energy.
But particles with mass (atoms in this case) can store heat internally in the form of electron energy levels.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2009
No. Heat IS kinetic energy. You can't really store kinetic energy as heat. It IS heat.

And no. Atoms cannot store heat as energy levels. Its not heat under those conditions. Its just energy levels.

If it is not moving particles then it isn't actual heat. It is true that light is often measured in temperature but it is the temperature of the source of the light.

And you are full of it on Plank's Constant as well. And that was after you discussed it only with someone that ran the numbers for you. Numbers you clearly didn't understand.

http://en.allexpe...nd-2.htm

Yes I did a search. You refused to listen or believe evidence as you clearly still think the same way.

It is typical of a Crank to refuse to change his theory when they find evidence to the contrary.

If the theory doesn't fit the evidence then the theory is wrong.

Do yourself a favor. Take some science classes. Don't waste any more money on Vanity Press publications.

Ethelred
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2009
You thought Question's statements about heat were odd? Check out this gem of witless buffoonery:
"Frequency is directly related to the length of a man-made unit of time, the second. If the length of a second is changed, the momentum and energy a photon contains changes also. This is because there are now more or fewer waves in each second, and this changes the momentum and energy of the photon.All of our arbitrary units of measurement must be measured and conform to the basic units of nature. So how can a photon be a naturally occurring particle? The momentum and energy of a photon conforms to the number of waves in a man-made second. The odds are astronomically against the momentum and energy of a photon of light being exactly equal to the length of a man-made unit of time. If this is true, then a photon cannot be a naturally occurring particle and can only be useful as an energy and momentum measurement of EMR, similar to a foot-pound or watt and other measurements."
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2009
Yes I noticed that one.

It sure speaks for itself doesn't it. Funny how we both saw it. I was skimming and skipping but that one stuck in my head.

You need tenacity to read much of that. I only looked at about ten percent. None of it made sense.

The Standard Model feels clunky to me but it does fit the evidence. MOST of the time. It has those mass problems. It predicts a high mass for vacuum due to virtual particles. I want the LHC to get back to work and find something NEW.

From Not Even Wrong:
http://www.math.c...rdpress/
Next weekend (Nov. 7-8): Second injection test. If sector 67 is ready, beam will travel through this sector (and possibly even through sector 56) as well as the two (sectors 23 and 78) tested during the first injection test.

November 20th: First attempt to circulate beams at the injection energy of 450 GeV
Early December: Collisions at 450 GeV

No more birds please.
http://user.web.c...06b.html

Ethelred
Husky
4 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
could these virtual particles that the standard model predict form some kind of custard pudding that photons have to plow through, transferring part of their energy to the pudding in the process, iow: is redshift caused by the expansion of space, or, is the expansion of space caused by redshifting photons.

I deliberately choose custard pudding analogy because of its nonlinear resistancecoefficient, slow moving object can pass through it without much resistance, but faster (read high energy particles) will feel its resistance more
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2009
is redshift caused by the expansion of space, or, is the expansion of space caused by redshifting photons.
The expansion of space causes the redshift in the photon. I have often wondered myself if the photons push back and thus cause expansion. Seems to me it should.

Photons don't have any sign of traveling at different speeds dependent on there energy levels. Indeed that is what the gamma ray bursts seem to be confirming. At the least the observation shows that any such differences are very small.

http://www.physor...994.html

As I think about this more IF photons push back on then the increasing number of photons in space could be a if not THE source of the possible acceleration of the expansion of the Universe.

I feel like a Crank saying that.

But it seems to me that if the expansion of Space-Time causes redshift it MUST also be taking energy from the photons as redshift IS a decrease in the energy of the photons. That energy MUST go somewhere.

Ethelred
jsa09
1 / 5 (1) Nov 08, 2009
If space is expanding then the universe will expand at an ever increasing rate i.e. accelerate.

It will do so, because added space will be the same as current space therefore more space equals more expansion all the time.

This will mean that the universe will be expanding at an ever increasing rate since it started. A constant acceleration if you will. Unless other alternate things are happening at the same time. If there is any form of intrinsic increase in the rate of space creation then the universe will expand at an ever increasing rate of acceleration. In such a case the rate of increase will increase over time as well.

To clarify just in case I was not clear. I would only need to remind everyone of the effect of compound interest. If you think of space as it stands right now as your account balance. Then we think of space expansion as your interest on your investment. We are never making any withdrawals therefore we are earning interest on our interest.
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2009
If space is expanding then the universe will expand at an ever increasing rate i.e. accelerate.
That appears to be the case but it hasn't always looked that way.
It will do so, because added space will be the same as current space therefore more space equals more expansion all the time.
Sorry you are forgetting about gravity. What you say is only true IF the idea that space has a property that induces expansion. Usually referred to as Dark Energy. Unless my speculation is right then Dark Energy isn't needed.

If I my idea and the idea of Dark Energy are wrong then there COULD be enough mass in the Universe to slow down the rate of expansion over time. However the amount of mass, both visible and implied, seems insufficient.

Just adding space doesn't remove gravity. It was thought that space was expanding only from momentum due to the Big Bang. This does not fit the new evidence the rate of expansion is increasing.

Ethelred
omatumr
Nov 08, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
Nov 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2009
What a sad state of affairs for astronomy.

We live in extremely interesting times. Observations which increasingly don't fit into respected old theories. A GR which fails on small scales. A particle physics model which fails to integrate gravity. The unsolved hierarchy problem. And the remedy of choice: entia multiplicanda (yes, William of Ockham) - inflation, dark matter, dark energy. Where are the theories that give falsifiable predictions about these entities?
Einstein needs a successor.
Alexa
Nov 10, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2009
Where are the theories that give falsifiable predictions about these entities
Are you perfectly sure, these theories doesn't exist? Don't expect these theories in mainstream science journals, though - they're still existing at qualitative evidence level - not quantitative one.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
Energy of "tired light" goes into hidden dimensions of vacuum foam and it manifests itself by backround noise.


Handwaving again. Tired light does not fit the evidence in any case. Especially since it is mostly used by those that try to make the evidence for the expansion of the Universe just go away.

Are you perfectly sure, these theories doesn't exist?


I am perfectly sure that Questions theory is a complete crock.

I know you have no numbers so your ideas cannot be tested. I have pointed that out before. You do not have a theory until you have testable NUMBERS.

hey're still existing at qualitative evidence level - not quantitative one.


Then they aren't theories. They are hypothesis at best. When you have one please let us know.

Ethelred
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
..you do not have a theory until you have testable NUMBERS...
Who defined scientific theory in this way? You?? For example, heliocentric system was proven by order of Venus phases - such evidence is perfectly relevant even at the moment, you're not able to compute anything about it. Look - no numbers.

From Aether theory follows, universe is infinitely old - and infinity is a number as well. It means, we will find well developed, evolving objects even at the farthest observable distance behind Hubble Deep Field. Such prediction can be tested perfectly.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
..Tired light does not fit the evidence in any case..
Do you have some evidence about it? Arm waving won't help you. You shouldn't replace one crackpotism by another one. Try to argument coherently and logically.

The problem is, we have all indicia available already for many years. Scientists never considered dispersion of light by microwave background seriously. They know about it from 1964 - and what? Did they change their theories about light spreading through vacuum in some corresponding way? No way...

http://en.wikiped...adiation
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
Who defined scientific theory in this way? You?
Yes. I am the official definition maker.

Generally, in science, a theory is a hypothesis that has passed at least some tests and therefor is no longer considered a mere hypothesis.

Without numbers all you have is a wild assed guess because there is no possible test that has any meaning at all. Something doesn't fit and you engaged in wild hand-waving involving gravitationally bound photos as you did on the gamma ray thread.
Look - no numbers
Quarter, half, full. Those are numbers.
From Aether theory follows, universe is infinitely old
Then the Aether WAG is wrong. The Universe is NOT infinitely old. This explains why you pretend that redshift isn't real.
we will find well developed, evolving objects even at the farthest observable distance behind Hubble Deep Field
So another failure of your theory because we DON'T find that. Indeed we find poorly developed messy looking things in the Deep Field photos.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
Do you have some evidence about it?
Yes I do.
http://en.wikiped...ed_light

No tired light hypothesis fits all the data.
Scientists never considered dispersion of light by microwave background seriously.
Because it doesn't work. It would cause blurring. Covered on the Wiki above.

And there is nothing on your link that claims the Cosmic microwave background radiation would cause dispersion so I don't even know why you posted that. It doesn't help you in any way.

Just posting a link to something you CLAIM could cause tired light doesn't help if the Link doesn't have a word to support your claim. You do that sort thing a lot.

Is this going to be another of your marathon hand waving sessions with no evidence and the usual links that don't have a thing to do with what you claim they do? Stonewalling like this won't change reality.

However I would like to congratulate on you vastly improved English. Writing a lot improved mine considerably as well.

Ethelred
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
Indeed we find poorly developed messy looking things in the Deep Field photos.

How do you comment HUDF-JD2?
http://www.astron...;id=3527
Diotrephes
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
The arrogance among commentators on this website stinks.

This article and the comments which follow are a perfect example - we're speaking about things that science hardly comprehends and yet the braggarts abound with sweeping criticisms.

A bit of humility is always becoming to physics. This is also the heart of its progress.

It's unfortunate, it really makes discussion pointless.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
..It would cause blurring..
It indeed does - more distant objects are virtually invisible. This is basically, what the "dark ages" postinflationary period is about. But the metamaterial properties of vacuum aren't so dispersive - I discussed it in recent post about Alexander's band in thread about GRB 090510 and metamaterial models of vacuum:

http://www.physor...994.html

In general, metamaterial is basically kind of foam, in which positive and negative curvatures are (nearly) balanced. Observers are choosing such structure of vacuum automatically by observation at large distance, because just this structure remains the least dispersive environment possible.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
The arrogance among commentators on this website stinks.
Just use "report abuse" feature, it works.
..it really makes discussion pointless..
Don't be naive - this may even be a hidden intention of some individuals here.
..stonewalling like this won't change reality..
Indeed, dense Aether model doesn't rely on interpretation of Big Bang as it has many other predictions & consequences.

The situation of hypothetical observer at water surface or inside of vacuum is analogous to observer of landscape under haze. At distance remote objects will remain always covered by haze, but at proximity they become transparent clear and visible. The experience of distant observer will be exactly as opposite: he would see us in early evolving Universe, while galaxies in his proximity would appear well developed and similar to Milky Way.

Basically it's an extension of famous Copernican principle. At the first glance, this model is indistinguishable from Big Bang theory.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
How do you comment HUDF-JD2?
Well its big. The distance is a guesstimate but it seems reasonable based on some stuff I have run across lately. That is the filtering method may be accurate enough to match the spread in the estimate.
Astronomers believe the galaxy is among the most distant measured, lying between redshifts 6 and 7.5
However it is not the spiral in the picture it is the fuzzy elliptical next to the spiral. It is massive if the distance is correct. But that fits at least some of the computer simulations. There should be some places where the gases concentrate. Elliptical can form up faster than spirals if the gas clouds have very low angular momentum. The cessation of star formation, assuming they can actually see that, fits the model for an elliptical.

Its covers too few pixels to tell a lot about its shape. Most of the information was from analyzing the light at different frequencies despite there not being enough light to get a spectrum.

Ethelred
Alexa
Nov 11, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
It's unfortunate, it really makes discussion pointless.
Speaking of being pointless. Did you have anything to contribute besides a vitriol?

Would you, for instance give us a clue as to just what Specifically set off the hostilities.

Don't like the idea of the Big Bang?

Perhaps the age of the Universe offends you?

Maybe you didn't like me pointing out that Questions ideas are totally without physical foundation.

Perhaps you just don't like not knowing as much as others.

Or perhaps you would actually like to discuss things now that you have blown off steam.

It is possible to discuss things politely. To be specific about what is annoying you. To contribute knowledge that others may not have. Perhaps you simply aren't aware of how the information was obtained. How much work and effort was put into it.

Based on some of your other posts you seem to have some problems with science where it may conflict with you preconceptions about how things work in the Universe.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
It indeed does - more distant objects are virtually invisible.


You didn't read the link. It would cause MORE blurring than is the case.

Ethelred
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
I've read a much more links - not just these Wikipedia ones. Images of most distant stars and galaxies are really blurred - and red-shifted as well.

http://cerncourie...rn/29486

We can observe similar situation between primary and secondary rainbows during heavy rain: light is absorbed here - but not dispersed. The trick is, such light is moving in lowest possible speed - which enables us to see space-time foam as huge, as possible, but still quite non-dispersive.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2009
To make things more clear: both BigBang theory, both tired light theory doesn't allow to observe objects, which are more distant, then the path, which light requires for complete red shift into wavelength, corresponding the microwave background of Universe. But in tired light model we could observe objects of whatever age or state of development - whereas in BigBang theory the most distant objects should be very young accordingly (i.e. they should appear like freshly formed galaxies, and so on).
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2009
..
Elliptical can form up faster than spirals ..

Are you sure about it?

Elliptical galaxies are usually these older ones. It's logical, because tidal forces between stars are destroying flatness of young galaxy gradually.
Compare the Wikipedia article "Most elliptical galaxies are composed of older, low-mass stars"...

http://en.wikiped...l_galaxy

Of course, if you believe, elliptical galaxies are these young ones, you'll get exactly opposite conclusion - but I don't think, your opinion is argument backed.
pauldentler
1 / 5 (1) Nov 20, 2009
I'm the person who brought to the attention of this forum the incontrovertable evidence of HUDF-JD2 galaxy. I watched my detractors drop off the forum when it became clear to them why I was pointing out the fact that this galaxy was showing one of two things:

1. The universe is at least 6 - 7 billion years older than the current 14-15 billion estimate.

2. There may have been no "Big Bang" because the law of "Conservation of Energy" extant in the universe we can observe cannot operate in a "boundless" universe, it must be "closed". Because "conservation of energy" can operate only in a closed space, all objects in that confined space react in reaction to the movements of one another, in other words everything in the finite universe is orbiting something else and when they fail to do so "conservation of energy" dictates they must "collide". This is the reason galaxies collide, they cross orbit one with one another & "conservation of energy" is applied.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2009
I'm the person who brought to the attention of this forum the incontrovertable evidence of HUDF-JD2 galaxy. I watched my detractors drop off the forum

This is a place to exchange arguments. This is no championship where we count the number of repetitions.
pauldentler
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2009
I'm the person who brought to the attention of this forum the incontrovertable evidence of HUDF-JD2 galaxy. I watched my detractors drop off the forum

This is a place to exchange arguments. This is no championship where we count the number of repetitions.

So then you should be willing to elucidate how the "law of conservation of energy" can be applied to the "brane-string concept" of your inherently leaky universe? For the "brane-string" to operate, enrgy must leak over into 5-8 dimensions of a "universal constant" of some sort, which will require the destruction of energy in the universe we observe. Tell me why this wouldn't happen?
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2009
So then you should be willing to elucidate how the "law of conservation of energy" can be applied to the "brane-string concept" of your inherently leaky universe?
I don't know what you mean by "my inherently leaky universe". I don't own a universe; i didn't even set up a model.
For the "brane-string" to operate, enrgy must leak over into 5-8 dimensions of a "universal constant" of some sort, which will require the destruction of energy in the universe we observe. Tell me why this wouldn't happen?
How do you know it doesn't happen?
pauldentler
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2009
So then you should be willing to elucidate how the "law of conservation of energy" can be applied to the "brane-string concept" of your inherently leaky universe?
I don't know what you mean by "my inherently leaky universe". I don't own a universe; i didn't even set up a model.
For the "brane-string" to operate, enrgy must leak over into 5-8 dimensions of a "universal constant" of some sort, which will require the destruction of energy in the universe we observe. Tell me why this wouldn't happen?
How do you know it doesn't happen?
You're the one hypothesizing the "leaky universe", not me, so it's up to you to prove how the "law of consevation of energy" works in the "brane-iac universe" where energy crosses closed boundaries to "another dimension".
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2009
You're the one hypothesizing the "leaky universe", not me, so it's up to you to prove how the "law of consevation of energy" works in the "brane-iac universe" where energy crosses closed boundaries to "another dimension".

No. I'm not hypothesizing any cosmological model - I'm favouring certain models. I'm not here to do missionary work. If you think there's something wrong with those models, fine.
You seem to be emotionally challenged ("brane-iac"); I just don't know whether it's due to the models or due to mentioning them.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2009
It is interesting to see a true Straw Man specialist in action. Invent someone's position for them and then attack it.

A favorite sport here. The key to defending yourself against such dubious arguments is to notice when they occur and to not defend a position that you didn't take. Plus of course mentioning the oppositions tendency to go through enough straw to feed the abattoirs of Chicago.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.