First stars in the universe left a unique signature

First stars in the universe left a unique signature
Researchers have identified a unique chemical signature left by the earliest stars in the universe with the first direct measurement under stellar conditions of an important nuclear reaction.

Determining the chemical abundance pattern left by the earliest stars in the universe is no easy feat. A Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientist is helping to do just that.

The first stars in the universe formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang (estimated at 13.8 billion years ago). Inside of these stellar furnaces, nuclear processes fused the hydrogen and helium made by the primordial nucleosynthesis into heavier elements.

An international team led by Brian Bucher of LLNL has made an important contribution to the ability to predict the unique chemical signature left by these early stars with the first direct measurement under stellar conditions of an important nuclear reaction. The research appears in the June 26 issue of the journal, Physical Review Letters.

Verification of the existence of these stars is important to understanding the evolution of the universe. Astronomers have been searching for years for long-lived, low-mass stars with the unique nucleosynthetic pattern matching predicted yields.

"It is vital to our understanding of the properties of the first stars and the formation of the first galaxies to verify the predicted composition of stellar ashes by comparing them to observational data," Bucher said.

In order to accurately determine the abundance signature of these , proper modeling of the stars and their is needed. One reaction that largely influences some key properties of the abundance pattern is the fusion of two carbon nuclei into a magnesium nucleus and one neutron. However, the measurement of stellar reaction rates in the laboratory is difficult because the likelihood of making a successful reaction is quite rare.

In this research, the scientists made a successful measurement of this carbon fusion at stellar energies using a laboratory accelerator.

"With this new measurement, we have significantly improved the precision of this rate for stellar modeling," Bucher said. "We've studied its impact on the resulting stellar abundance pattern predictions, helping to identify the signature of the universe's elusive first generation of and their supernovae."


Explore further

Galactic archaeologists uncover new insights into the formation of the earliest stars and galaxies

More information: "First Direct Measurement of 12C(12C,n)23Mg at Stellar Energies." Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 251102 – Published 25 June 2015. dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.251102
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: First stars in the universe left a unique signature (2015, July 1) retrieved 25 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-07-stars-universe-left-unique-signature.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
3071 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 01, 2015
There's a bit of a disconnect here between what was measured in the lab and what actually happened.
Firstly, no one has any actual recorded observation of a star forming all by itself out in space, thus there is nothing to compare to the lab results.
Secondly, how did the first star(s) form all by themselves without any outside help? There might have been a great enough gaseous density but what would have provided the trigger that set off the fusion reactions?
Thirdly, the use of "stellar energies" in an accelerator is somehow equated to the actual conditions that might have been present in the heart of an actual burning star - except that we cannot then relate it back to how the star(s) themselves started in the first place.

So either the article or the actual research write up is misleading in trying to associate this lab result with the formation sequence of the first stars.

Jul 01, 2015
@DTS: Besides that there are plenty of star formation observations available today, that wasn't what the article was about. It was details of active stars, which we see even more of. =D Now famously including the first stars, as of a few weeks ago.

If you are curious about the basic if star formation, why don't you go to the nearest encyclopedia (Wikipedia)? It can tell you these things, including how observations of fusion reactions couple into the observations of stars themselves. This isn't exactly rocket science.

Jul 01, 2015
@DTS: Before all other consideration, the main question is how do they determine that these are the very first stars? If these are not the very fist stars; then there contents are contaminated by material from previous stars.

The whole thing rests on the assumption that there was a big bang creation of the universe about 13.8 billion years ago. What happens if the universe is infinite is like a living organism whose contents are "perpetually coming into being and passing out of existence" as Heraclitus first thought?

Modern quantum electrodynamics can give a possible explain the existence of an infinite and eternal universe and all the things that we observe "
http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

Jul 01, 2015
First? How did Quarks that disappear evolve into protons? So which came first, the proton or the quark. My 2 cents, quarks are quackery, i.e. first s not defined!

Jul 01, 2015
@rufusgwarren:
First? How did Quarks that disappear evolve into protons? So which came first, the proton or the quark. My 2 cents, quarks are quackery, i.e. first s not defined!
How did you get from what's in the PO to the formation of protons and quarks?

Trying to figure out how we began from a point that did not exist until "Schrodinger's cat" died, then came something, something, protons, electrons, ... the event calendar seems like something made up after the wedding or a fairy tale.

... therefore First!

Jul 01, 2015
rufus: well your understanding of the big bang, what happened, how, and when, seems not to be the same as what scientists mean when they use the phrase. First, the universe need not have come "from a single point." All that theory tells us is that the universe started from a state of very high energy density. Whether that was a finite amount of energy in a small finite volume, or an infinite amount of energy in an infinite volume is functionally the same thing, in the case of cosmology. All that matters, really is the density of the energy.

What happens next is that all this energy gets stretched out over space created *within* the universe itself, lowering in energy density. And not entirely unlike water vapor condensing into droplets or ice crystals on expansion, the energy "freezes out" into the fundamental particles and those into composite particles (first protons and neutrons, then simple atoms, then molecules and fusion into larger atoms)

Jul 01, 2015
rufus: well your understanding of the big bang, what happened, how, and when, seems not to be the same as what scientists mean when they use the phrase. First, the universe need not have come "from a single point." All that theory tells us is that the universe started from a state of very high energy density. Whether that was a finite amount of energy in a small finite volume, or an infinite amount of energy in an infinite volume is functionally the same thing, in the case of cosmology. All that matters, really is the density of the energy.

What happens next is that all this energy gets stretched out over space created *within* the universe itself, lowering in energy density. And not entirely unlike water vapor condensing into droplets or ice crystals on expansion, the energy "freezes out" into the fundamental particles and those into composite particles (first protons and neutrons, then simple atoms, then molecules and fusion into larger atoms)

So you say ... protons?

Jul 01, 2015
Quasars are supposed to be at the furthest reaches of the universe and are supposed to contain only primordial elements, mainly hydrogen and helium according to BBT.

Yet the quasars as well as the intergalactic space have anomalously high iron content! So much for a big bang creation at a finite past!

Jul 01, 2015
Explain the containment of the entire universe as some high density object. Have we defined the maximum density based upon what? Like Les McCann and Eddie Harris, "gotta make it real, compared to what?"

Jul 01, 2015
just extrapolated to different degrees


And just what justifies said extrapolation?

The extrapolation of the known scalability of plasma processes are based upon "well-established" physics, why then should we limit the extrapolation of these known mechanisms equally? Why shouldn't we extrapolate plasma processes from the Plank to Hubble scale and beyond, it would do so much to eliminate many mysteries of the sciences. No more DE, DM, BH's, GR, etc.... just a KISS Universe based almost entirely on classical physics.

Jul 02, 2015
Why shouldn't we extrapolate plasma processes from the Plank to Hubble scale and beyond, it would do so much to eliminate many mysteries of the sciences
@cd
i suggested this before... perhaps now is a good time for you to take this links and actually use it?

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

Jul 02, 2015
Nothing, or everything ... it depends on your aim/purpose/goal, for a particular cosmological model

Fork again?
Well, "the known scalability of plasma processes" is pretty limited, in terms of its experimental foundation (~a few km? million km?)

What they are doing at the LHC and atomic fusion/fission is the study of plasmas, slightly smaller than "~a few km". Whether they always know what they're studying is another question altogether.
Done that, shown it doesn't work ... next?

And oddly, here we are living in this world with fantastic technology mostly based upon those classical physics. Weird. Now off to my wormhole of bent spacetime...

Jul 02, 2015
Why shouldn't we extrapolate plasma processes from the Plank to Hubble scale and beyond, it would do so much to eliminate many mysteries of the sciences
@cd
i suggested this before... perhaps now is a good time for you to take this links and actually use it?

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm


You could have been even more vague by posting a link to google, ....assuming that was your intended goal.

Jul 03, 2015
@shavera:
... All that theory tells us is that the universe started from a state of very high energy density. Whether that was a finite amount of energy in a small finite volume, or an infinite amount of energy in an infinite volume is functionally the same thing, in the case of cosmology. All that matters, really is the density of the energy.

What happens next is that all this energy gets stretched out over space created *within* the universe itself, lowering in energy density. And not entirely unlike water vapor condensing into droplets or ice crystals on expansion, the energy "freezes out" into the fundamental particles and those into composite particles (first protons and neutrons, then simple atoms, then molecules and fusion into larger atoms)


One of the best comment I've lately read. well intentioned, short and comprehensive. 5/5

Jul 04, 2015
You could have been even more vague by posting a link to google, ....assuming that was your intended goal.
@noumenon
trolling? LOL
you didn't open it, did you?

of course not... that would make it clear to you why it was posted if you had... and you can't do that because then it would mean you couldn't spam/troll the comments with your BS and "obvious" superiority in all things and education, right?

the link has been given in the past (though i usually use THIS link - http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics so that he doesn't get lost looking for specifics. i know how hard it is for an illiterate to find specific details when they are intentionally blinded by something like religion, conspiracy or philosophy and Dunning-Kruger)

the argument will be ignored by cantdrive

luckily, you stepped into it and showed your true colours, though. thanks

Jul 05, 2015
Truth is short, clear and comprehensible. Lying is verbose and contradictory and finds fertile soil only in dishonest people
@ren
like you, right?
you've spread plenty of religion here which is a lie by definition
Usually when one person is lying avoided detail in his explanations realizing the risk not to get caught in contradictions or divergence from the factology. Why you not explained in detail your favorite big bang theory?
so it that why you cannot refute the studies i linked to you?
you lack detail, evidence and you don't want to risk getting caught (again) lying?

to use your own words so perhaps you can follow through with answers -
"Why you not explained in detail your favorite evidence for refute studies i link you in past?"

Jul 05, 2015
@Ren82:
Truth is short, clear and comprehensible. Lying is verbose and contradictory and finds fertile soil only in dishonest people.


Dude, I mean no offense, but such a statement is just senseless..
A truth is any real fact, a lie is anything non true, plain and simple.
An argument can be short and clear, or extensive and complex. It is related to the ease or difficulty of understanding ("comprehensible"), NOT its veracity.
As for theories (by definition), these can't be taken nor as truth nor lies.

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