Forming stars in the early universe

November 21, 2016, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
A Hubble image of a field of distant galaxies. A new study of the gas content in galaxies so distant their light has been traveling for about ten billion years suggests that the processes converting gas into stars is about the same back then as in the local universe. Credit: NASA, ESA, G. Illingworth (UCO/Lick & UCSC), R. Bouwens (UCO/Lick & Leiden U.), and the HUDF09 Team

The first stars appeared about one hundred million years after the big bang, and ever since then stars and star formation processes have lit up the cosmos. When the universe was about three billion years old, star formation activity peaked at rates about ten times above current levels. Why this happened, and whether the physical processes back then were different from those today or just more active (and why), are among the most pressing questions in astronomy. Since stars are made from gas, the gas content of galaxies is a measure of their star formation potential and (at least in the local universe) the fraction of matter in form of gas, the "gas fraction", is a measure of the star formation capability.

Gas in galaxies is depleted as new stars are formed and as some of it is blown out of the system by supernovae or by winds; gas can also be added by infall from the intergalactic medium. These processes are roughly understood in the local universe, mostly because the galaxies are bright and close enough to be studied in detail. For galaxies in the peak epoch of star formation, the evolution of the gas fraction is much less well constrained. Measuring the gas content is often done with observations of carbon monoxide, an abundant gas molecule, but in the early universe it is difficult to do because the distances make the lines faint, while the cosmic redshift pushes the usual diagnostic transitions to wavelengths that are beyond the capability of current facilities.

Francesca Civano and a team of her colleagues used the large ALMA millimeter facility to study the gas fractions in a set of forty-five in the cosmic epoch of peak star formation. Although the diagnostic emission lines from the gas were too faint to study, the team used the strong dust continuum as a proxy, arguing from other results that the ratio of gas to dust was reasonably well understood. The gas fractions for this set of galaxies were found to be quite similar to the values in other massive , which was somewhat of a surprise because some evolutionary trends in gas fraction had been expected. Their other important result is that the relationship between the gas fraction and star formation activity is in good agreement with current models and, according to the scientists, implies that a single prescription applies from the local universe out to at least as early as the peak epoch about three billion years ago.

Explore further: Star formation in distant galaxy clusters

Related Stories

Star formation in distant galaxy clusters

February 15, 2016

The first stars appeared about one hundred million years after the big bang, and ever since then stars and star formation processes have lit up the cosmos, producing heavy elements, planets, black holes, and arguably all ...

ALMA explores the Hubble Ultra Deep Field

September 22, 2016

An international team of astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) has explored the same distant corner of the universe first revealed in the iconic image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF).

Making stars in early galaxies

December 10, 2012

(Phys.org)—Ten billion years ago or so, at least according to the current picture, the youthful universe began to produce an abundance of new stars. The very first ones appeared in the young cosmos after only a few hundred ...

A burst of stars 13 billion years ago

June 3, 2013

(Phys.org) —The universe immediately following the big bang contained mostly hydrogen and some helium. All the other elements needed to make galaxies, planets, and life were formed in stellar interiors or related processes. ...

Recommended for you

Neutron-star merger yields new puzzle for astrophysicists

January 18, 2018

The afterglow from the distant neutron-star merger detected last August has continued to brighten - much to the surprise of astrophysicists studying the aftermath of the massive collision that took place about 138 million ...

New technique for finding life on Mars

January 18, 2018

Researchers demonstrate for the first time the potential of existing technology to directly detect and characterize life on Mars and other planets. The study, published in Frontiers in Microbiology, used miniaturized scientific ...

North, east, south, west: The many faces of Abell 1758

January 18, 2018

Resembling a swarm of flickering fireflies, this beautiful galaxy cluster glows intensely in the dark cosmos, accompanied by the myriad bright lights of foreground stars and swirling spiral galaxies. A1758N is a sub-cluster ...

33 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RNP
4.4 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2016
The paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...10.03656
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2016
The paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...10.03656

@RNP
thanks!
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2016
Since stars are made from gas, the gas content of galaxies is a measure of their star formation potential and (at least in the local universe) the fraction of matter in form of gas, the "gas fraction", is a measure of the star formation capability.

Astrophysicist's ignorance of plasma knows no bounds, and it goes right down to the fundamental aspects of the matter involved. All their fanciful pontifications of gas dynamics is utterly meaningless drivel not worth the recycled paper its printed on.
jonesdave
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2016
Since stars are made from gas, the gas content of galaxies is a measure of their star formation potential and (at least in the local universe) the fraction of matter in form of gas, the "gas fraction", is a measure of the star formation capability.

Astrophysicist's ignorance of plasma knows no bounds, and it goes right down to the fundamental aspects of the matter involved. All their fanciful pontifications of gas dynamics is utterly meaningless drivel not worth the recycled paper its printed on.


Says the follower of the Velikovskian Invisible Lightning Bolts cult! Those people have more likely forgotten more about plasma than you quite obviously will ever know!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2016
Astrophysicist's ignorance of plasma knows no bounds
@eu TROLL
except this is proven to be a false statement
repeating this false statement doesn't make it more true
All their fanciful pontifications of gas dynamics is utterly meaningless drivel not worth the recycled paper its printed on
where is your evidence?

if you could prove it you would be holding a nobel
you would at the very least be the hero of every pseudoscience idiot poster here

more to the point: considering you can't accept empirical evidence and experimental validation (like this: http://www.pppl.g...HEET.pdf )

and you can't actually produce the same level of scientific evidence

then why should anyone listen to your rant?

100,000 experiments that prove you wrong in one link
that means, by definition, you're a chronic liar
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2016
@bschott
Down-voting someone for linking the paper associated with an article is irrational. It also shows that you are not interested in science, only in forwarding your own personal agenda. Although your votes are irrelevant, such behaviour does not belong here.
bschott
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2016
@bschott
Down-voting someone for linking the paper associated with an article is irrational.

Not if the paper is irrational.
It also shows that you are not interested in science,

You and I define the word "science" differently. First line of the article:
The first stars appeared about one hundred million years after the big bang

A theoretical statement about a theoretical event....expounding on "how things work" in space when your paper has its foundations in theory only isn't science. Now if you will excuse me I have to go "gas up" the tokamek....ridiculous.

only in forwarding your own personal agenda.

Downvoting a post equates to pushing my "agenda" does it? Paranoid much?
Although your votes are irrelevant, such behaviour does not belong here.

Then why acknowledge it with a comment?

P.S. You are stump too then? Cause I didn't downvote your post of the paper....

RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2016
@bschott
It is irrational to down-vote links related to the associated paper, even if the paper WERE irrational (it is not). If you had any interest in REAL science you would appreciate that.

Saying that you have a different (and presumably, in your mind, better) definition of "science" than the people that carry it out just emphasizes the depth of your delusions.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2016
@full of bs
Not if the paper is irrational
that would require links, references, evidence and the scientific refute
none of which you provided, nor can you provide
You and I define the word "science" differently
perhaps you should try using the dictionary like everyone else?
Downvoting a post equates to pushing my "agenda" does it?
coupled with your other statements and failure to produce evidence, topped off with your known support of pseudoscience, it is considered circumstantial evidence for intent, which is pushing an agenda
You are stump
no, he isn't

and you did downvote a polite reply including the link, which is essentially the same thing

-a nonsensical irrational agenda driven pseudoscience argument sans evidence

kinda like
http://phys.org/n...ted.html

http://phys.org/n...ant.html
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2016
It is irrational to down-vote links related to the associated paper,

HELLO???
P.S. You are stump too then? Cause I didn't downvote your post of the paper....

What is wrong with you? Tell you what....I'll downvote it now so you can actually feel the novelty of being correct about something...you owe me one.

There.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2016
@bschott
There you go! I knew you would not understand how the rational amongst us perform science.
And then you couldn't help but to prove me right: No actual interest in the science. It's all personal for you isn't it?
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2016
Down-voting someone for linking the paper associated with an article is irrational
@RNP
he hates rational people
especially me... so it doesn't bother me

you should see some of his other irrational claims...like
We have mapped the magnetic fields on the suns surface, this is the first mention of a strapping field, it never existed until it was required for this experiment
http://phys.org/n...ted.html

or this gem
The Martian soil will need to be brought back to earth for study, to determine what colonists will have to add to it in order to make it fertile
http://phys.org/n...oil.html

and as you can see... he doesn't like being proven wrong

ask him about the super-magnetic cancer-killer... you will love that conversation!
Phys1
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2016
@bschott
Down-voting someone for linking the paper associated with an article is irrational.

Not if the paper is irrational.

Certainly also if the paper is irrational.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2016
and you did downvote a polite reply including the link, which is essentially the same thing

Actually, I downvoted the poster...that being you....because you are shining example of most things wrong with people in general. The only reason I don't link to your posts is that every single one shows it
perhaps you should try using the dictionary ...

Here you go idiot, let me know when you find the word "theoretical" in there somewhere,
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Lastly, when you call for
links, references, evidence

but the article begins with:
The first stars appeared about one hundred million years after the big bang

And the word "theoretical" does not appear anywhere in the definition of science, you once again demonstrate a short coming in comprehension.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2016
@full of bs
you are shining example of most things wrong with people
like i said - you hate rational people
what is so bad about wanting evidence and not accepting claims that can't be validated as proof of something?
tell me - how many of your super-cancer-killer machine anecdotes have you personally checked and validated to insure they're accurate?
ROTFLMFAO
let me know
..and right back at ya:
Here you go idiot, let me know when you find the word "theoretical" in there somewhere
https://arxiv.org...56v1.pdf

but the article begins with
keyword = "article"
and article is not the same thing as a study
an article is the subjective opinion of the author about a subject - this being the paper that is linked

the study (paper) isn't subjective

this is the root of the problem between us - your acceptance of subjective sources as valid information and objective representations of reality

epic fail
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2016
he hates rational people
especially me..

This is the single funniest thing I have ever read here......I mean if CD85 had stated he was a gravity expert or Ira stated he was an English prof....it still couldn't top this.
How rational were you being here moron?
http://phys.org/n...ons.html

Even funnier that you are pleading your case to another poster who didn't even know that 3 x 5 stars meant that nobody had downvoted his post....neat that you guys try to "get" physics though. It makes for an entertaining forum.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2016
@full of bs cont'd
And the word "theoretical" does not appear anywhere in the definition of science
which had absolutely nothing to do with my argument...
at all
whatsoever

but lets talk about that a little!

for starters - what is the definition of theory
now what is the definition of a scientific theory

being that you're not clarifying to which you're referring to, how can one actually assign specific definitions to your comment?

by your history

now considering you're past epic failures WRT definitions, basic research and simple facts (like strapping fields, needing martian soil to be brought to earth to know what's in it etc), we can conclude that your intentional vague statements are irrational attempts to apply pseudoscientific logic to your surroundings and argue a point using philosophy rather than through evidenciary proof

therefore you attack with a strawman ""theoretical" does not appear anywhere in the definition of science"

thanks for the demo
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016
Here you go idiot, let me know when you find the word "theoretical" in there somewhere
https://arxiv.org...56v1.pdf

I thought this was going to be a different definition of science, one that made you look like less of an idiot...I wasn't surprised when it wasn't.
like i said - you hate rational people

It's not surprising that you actually think you are rational.... you also believe you are relevant and your opinion carries weight in the real world....poor delusional Stumpid.
Keep the laughs coming!
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2016
@ bachoot-Skippy. How you are? I am good, thanks for asking.

Ira stated he was an English prof


Where the heck you get that from? I never ever did say I was the English professor or English professional either. I say enough stupid stuffs on my own without you having to make up me saying stupid stuffs I never said..
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016
And the word "theoretical" does not appear anywhere in the definition of science
which had absolutely nothing to do with my argument...
at all
whatsoever

The post of mine you responded to when you mentioned that I look up the definition of science:
You and I define the word "science" differently. First line of the article:

The first stars appeared about one hundred million years after the big bang

A theoretical statement about a theoretical event....expounding on "how things work" in space when your paper has its foundations in theory only isn't science....

Yet another reading comprehension fail from Stumpid....then again, every post is....
therefore you attack with a strawman ""theoretical" does not appear anywhere in the definition of science"

LMAO!!!
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016
@ bachoot-Skippy. How you are? I am good, thanks for asking.

Ira stated he was an English prof


Where the heck you get that from? I never ever did say I was the English professor or English professional either. I say enough stupid stuffs on my own without you having to make up me saying stupid stuffs I never said..

Ira...don't be a stumpid....read ALL of the words:
I mean if CD85 had stated he was a gravity expert or Ira stated he was an English prof....it still couldn't top this.

"if" Ira....."if"
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2016
@full of bs
I thought
there is absolutely no evidence at all whatsoever that you did this at all - above or elsewhere
you also believe you are relevant and your opinion carries weight
no, i don't
opinions are like *ssholes

lets talk about rational for a moment:
how many people's "claims" on your machine did you validate?
how many of those did you personally visit?
of those, how many medical records did you see?
how many actually had cancer and not a bad diagnosis?
how many of those "cured" can you directly link to your super-machine with evidence?

lastly: how do you know it wasn't a cure because of the MRI, airport security, a metal detector, extension cables in the house, their digital watch and laptops, their wi-fi or any other EM source?
or the MEDS they were prescribed?

a rational person (me) would ask this - as i did
- and you argued against it
there is no doubt about who is "rational" here... and it aint you, little girl
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2016
@full of bs cont'd
The post of mine you responded to when you mentioned that I look up the definition of science
and you think i was arguing that science contained the word "theoretical"?
by all means, show where i state that one! LMFAO

Yet another reading comprehension fail from bschitthead....then again, every post is....

so bschitthead... where is your proof?
where is the proof that i argued about "theoretical"?
(other than your delusional assignment of a reply as justification for a strawman)! LMFAO

where is your proof of your super cancer killer?
martian soil?
strapping fields not existing before the experiment?
the failure of observation of a "strapping field" when you didn't even know what the definition of a strapping field was...????

feel free to expound!
thanks!

LMFAO
.read ALL of the words:
were you going for irony?
LOL
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2016
@ bachoot-Skippy. Well that's better. Apology accepted.

Next time you need use me as the example of somebody saying something stupid, all you got to do is ask first instead of just making something up. That way you can get something that is more like the kind of stupid things I would really say.
bschott
1 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2016
a rational person (me) would ask this - as i did
- and you argued against it

Claiming to have had rational thoughts at some point in your life is fine, try getting into that state of mind here, cause the link I provided above is you being how you usually are here which is reactionary, abusive and disjointed in your thinking/comments...along with completely wrong....just like above with the whole "science" thing.
About the machine, I can tell you that I have personally provided one of mine to 3 people who had stage 4 cancer, the 2 who kept using it are cancer free and still alive, the one who didn't keep using it passed away. You can keep harping on it all you want, at some point in the not too distant future my reply to you will be just a link about it.
Anyone curious can go read the thread about the strapping field. You made out far worse than you think...which sadly, is normal for you here.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2016
lastly: how do you know it wasn't a cure because of the MRI, airport security, a metal detector, extension cables in the house, their digital watch and laptops, their wi-fi or any other EM source?
or the MEDS they were prescribed?

a rational person (me) would ask this - as i did
LMAO..... you think a rational person would ask these questions....I'll let that stand as proof of your rationality....that you would look to variables present in the life of every person who has died from cancer for one of them to now operate as a cure....well done yet again!
hawkingsbrother
Nov 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
hawkingsbrother
Nov 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2016
@full of bs
along with completely wrong....just like above with the whole "science" thing
really?
so your claim that my argument is about "theoretical" in science is correct?
then please show my quote!LOL
About the machine
and i call bullsh*t-
1- you can't diagnose stage anything cancer

2- you can't provide empirical evidence that said machine was the cause for *any* healing

3- it's not like EM forces and exposure isn't studied at all - show how the EM works to "heal" or eradicate cancer

4- you can't prove that any other forces or treatment was not the cause of healing

5- claims require evidence: you have never, ever, provided anything proving your super cancer-killer is in any way, shape or form, responsible for curing anything

6- if you can provide a link in the future, at least then you will be substantiating your claim. but that don't mean it's science or even legit - i can post links from people who "prove" faeries live in their yard...

epic fail
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2016
@bschitthead cont'd
go read the thread about the strapping field. You made out far worse than you think
yeah... you keep believing that one
it will help you sleep at night

you claimed strapping fields didn't exist until the experiment - and that they weren't observed - without even actually looking at the definition of the term!

even a quick cursory search of the evidence shows you're an idiot

you got caught in a blatant lie making sh*t up because you want to push your pseudoscience - period
you think a rational person would ask these questions
only you could state that asking pertinent information and requesting evidence that x and y are actually doing what you claim wouldn't be rational...LMFAO

yeah... thanks for outing yourself!

so tell me- why is your magnet machine so much more successful than, say: an MRI?
exposure time?
field strength?
what?
LMFAO

all ya gotta do is provide evidence for your claims
that's it

LOL

FredJose
2 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2016
The first stars appeared about one hundred million years after the big bang, and ever since then stars and star formation processes have lit up the cosmos.

The big problem for the researchers is that they are basing their research on the [totally unverified] assumption that stars can form from clouds of gas all by themselves with no outside help whatsoever[too few supernovas to help there either].
So they are making the fraction of gas remaining in a galaxy the measure of the potential of star formation for said galaxy. So what? there's no way to show [currently] that having more gas will necessarily lead to more or faster star formation - all by themselves. That tiny little conundrum of observation still eludes scientists today. All they can really show is that the less gas a galaxy had the more stars are present or vice versa. But not that stars actually form or do not form, depending on gas supply.
RNP
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2016
@FredJose
....So what? there's no way to show [currently] that having more gas will necessarily lead to more or faster star formation


WRONG. Just go and look up the well researched and well documented Kennicutt-Schmidt law.
(e.g. https://en.wikipe...midt_law )
tj10
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2016
Maybe someday they will actually learn whether or not stars can form by totally natural processes and even better, if they can, it would be great if they would tell us HOW it happens instead of just telling us THAT it happens. Is that asking too much of a scientist?

http://crev.info/...rmation/

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.