Oldest Known Star In The Universe Discovered - Science - News - The Independent

[6Foot2]

Link: Oldest known star in the Universe discovered - Science - News - The Independent

 

...The team from Australian National University (ANU) say that the star, located around 6,000 light years away from Earth, is roughly 13.6 billion years old. This means it was formed just a few million years after the Big Bang, thought to have occurred some 13.8 billion years ago.

 

The discovery of the star, which is located within our own Galaxy, was described by lead researcher Dr Stefan Keller as a “one in a 60 million chance.”...

[sted]

so not bruce forsyth then?

[sonofsanta]

Right, so, my understanding of astrophysics barely even qualifies as amateur. Enthusiastic might be the best word.

 

But... I'm surprised a star that old is that close. If it was 13.6 billion years old and 13 billion light years away, you'd be seeing an early star. Lovely. But that old and only 6,000 light years away? It's been alive for 13.6 billion years, almost the lifespan of the Universe? I didn't think stars could survive so long and all the first generation stars had long since exploded.

 

Am I being really thick or is this something our models don't predict?

[sted]

Right, so, my understanding of astrophysics barely even qualifies as amateur. Enthusiastic might be the best word.

 

But... I'm surprised a star that old is that close. If it was 13.6 billion years old and 13 billion light years away, you'd be seeing an early star. Lovely. But that old and only 6,000 light years away? It's been alive for 13.6 billion years, almost the lifespan of the Universe? I didn't think stars could survive so long and all the first generation stars had long since exploded.

 

Am I being really thick or is this something our models don't predict?

 

actually a fair point my GUESS is that while most 1st generation stars were huge and shortlived this one was created in a less dense area so was smaller colder and will burn for longer

[6Foot2]

... I'm surprised a star that old is that close...

 

I was surprised by this when I read it too. But from this page:

 

Link: Oldest Star Found

 

...First generation stars are predominantly tens or hundreds of times more massive than the Sun. They live fast, die young and have not survived to the present day. The second generation star we have discovered is, on the other hand, a little smaller than the Sun providing it with an enormous lifespan of over 13 billion years...

 

The other thing to consider is that currently many [most?] astronomers accept The Big Bang as the method of creating The Universe: Space and time came into existence in that event and began to expand from there. Objects that are shown to be very distant are know to be very old as it has taken a long time for the light from that object to reach us. This does not mean that very old objects cannot exist closer to us.

 

Not sure I have explained this very clearly [Have to go now: Been called to a classroom]

 

HTH.

[Greenbeast]

well noticed SOS, I did think it sound a ridiculously small distance away but couldn't put my finger on why that bothered me.

[Greenbeast]

I was surprised by this when I read it too. But from this page:

 

Link: Oldest Star Found

 

 

 

The other thing to consider is that currently many [most?] astronomers accept The Big Bang as the method of creating The Universe: Space and time came into existence in that event and began to expand from there. Objects that are shown to be very distant are know to be very old as it has taken a long time for the light from that object to reach us. This does not mean that very old objects cannot exist closer to us.

 

Not sure I have explained this very clearly [Have to go now: Been called to a classroom]

 

HTH.

 

Yes, that does make sense

[sonofsanta]

I was surprised by this when I read it too. But from this page:

 

Link: Oldest Star Found

 

 

 

The other thing to consider is that currently many [most?] astronomers accept The Big Bang as the method of creating The Universe: Space and time came into existence in that event and began to expand from there. Objects that are shown to be very distant are know to be very old as it has taken a long time for the light from that object to reach us. This does not mean that very old objects cannot exist closer to us.

 

Not sure I have explained this very clearly [Have to go now: Been called to a classroom]

 

HTH.

 

Works for me so it isn't a first generation star - because they are all dead - just a really long lived second generation star.

 

I knew the relation between far-away-so-really-old-and-probably-not-there-now-not-that-now-has-any-meaning-in-a-relativistic-Universe, but I didn't realise stars were expected to have such long life spans, which was why the proximity surprised me. These reports are more normally "we've seen a star formed not long after the Big Bang, because we saw it really bloody far away" so this is something out of the ordinary in that regard.

[tmcd35]

Here's El Reg's version of the story (I read yesterday): SkyMapper turns up oldest star ever found

 

The other thing to consider is that currently many [most?] astronomers accept The Big Bang as the method of creating The Universe: Space and time came into existence in that event and began to expand from there.

 

Think it was a TV program I tried watching on the subject once, most likely Horizon, they tried to explain that the Big Bang didn't happen in one location at specific point in space-time. Rather it happened everywhere all at the same time?!?

 

Needless to say my head exploded and my neck's experienced a pleasent breeze ever since (thank's to Weird Al for the imagery).

[sonofsanta]

Think it was a TV program I tried watching on the subject once, most likely Horizon, they tried to explain that the Big Bang didn't happen in one location at specific point in space-time. Rather it happened everywhere all at the same time?!?

 

Needless to say my head exploded and my neck's experienced a pleasent breeze ever since (thank's to Weird Al for the imagery).

 

Matter can't be destroyed - only converted to energy - so everything that ever existed and will ever exist was there at the beginning of the Universe.

 

The Universe isn't growing, it's inflating (that's the term they use, IIRC) - the usual analogy is that all the points on the surface of a balloon exist before you blow it up, but when it's filled with air they're just further apart. The balloon itself doesn't consist of any extra matter (ignoring the air), that matter just goes further.

[6Foot2]

...they tried to explain that the Big Bang didn't happen in one location at specific point in space-time. Rather it happened everywhere all at the same time?!?...

 

That's it! And space-time has been 'expanding' ever since.

[Greenbeast]

Here's El Reg's version of the story (I read yesterday): SkyMapper turns up oldest star ever found

 

 

 

Think it was a TV program I tried watching on the subject once, most likely Horizon, they tried to explain that the Big Bang didn't happen in one location at specific point in space-time. Rather it happened everywhere all at the same time?!?

 

Needless to say my head exploded and my neck's experienced a pleasent breeze ever since (thank's to Weird Al for the imagery).

 

and of course until the big bang happened there was no 'where' and 'when'

[themightymrp]

To quote a Terry Pratchett line - "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."

 

 

EDIT - got it wrong, WHICH exploded is correct

Edited February 11, 2014 by themightymrp

[sonofsanta]

To quote a Terry Pratchett line - "In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."

 

EDIT - got it wrong, WHICH exploded is correct

 

It seems only right to follow that with the relevant Douglas Adams quote as well

[ButterflyMoon]

@sted

so not bruce forsyth then?

this actually made me splatter tea all over the keyboard!!