 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Astro Forum » Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding -... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Morpheal... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm BBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.
UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
cosmic time".
I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....
"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."
What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
Bang. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Morpheal:
On Oct 29, 5:50 am, Morpheal <bobezergai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]In
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm
BBC news: in the journal Nature, two teams of
astronomers report their observations of a
gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion
light-years away. The massive star died about 630
million years after the Big Bang.
[/quote]
I've seen data that indicates the BB could already have been pushed
back to 14.7 Gy.
[quote]UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation
as "a step back in cosmic time".
I suggest that the giant star must be older than the
"Big Bang" and that it does not violate existing
models of such objects burning out as they age...
[/quote]
If we can see it at this distance, it must have been *huge*. This
would make its "life span" decades or millenia.
[quote]as the BBC writer describes.....
[/quote]
He at least talked to the source of the report. You did not.
[quote]"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars
burn out and collapse. During collapse, super-fast
jets of matter burst out from the stars. Collisions
occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths.
[/quote]
.... or the miasma which formed the behemoth was still trying to
coalesce. In that age, it was expected that space would be mass-rich.
[quote]The interaction generates the energetic signals
detected by Swift Remnants of the huge stars end
their days as black holes."
What is significant is that either the existing model
concerning such events must be discarded as
wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so either the
Big Bang pushed back
[/quote]
Already required by other observations, and already permitted by
others.
[quote]and redefined or acceptance given that stars and
other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave
rise to the largest portion of what we see in our
portion of the universe.
[/quote]
As much as I want to agree, this observation does not require pre-BB
structure.
[quote]There is too much evidence against pushing back
the Big Bang
[/quote]
.... more than 1 Gy ...
[quote]to accommodate such anomalous events so we
are left with the theory that some things that we
see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the
Big Bang.
[/quote]
I happen to think that "before" the Big Bang, is the space above the
event horizon of the Black Hole our Universe is. But this observation
does not make this pet "theory" more likely, as I see it as being
still too likely to have occurred in a mass-rich early Universe.
Keep in mind, that really distant objects appear "anomalously" large,
because (if BB is right) they are immersed in a Universe that at that
time was much smaller. So if you feel BBT is invalidated in some way,
you need to consider how all the mass displayed can be compressed into
a much smaller space... and *not* form supermassive stars such as you
are currently considering.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gordon Stangler... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Morpheal <bobezergai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Inhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stmBBC news: in
the journal Nature, two teams of astronomers report their observations
of a gamma-ray burst from a star that died 13.1 billion light-years
away. The massive star died about 630 million years after the Big
Bang.
UK astronomer Nial Tanvir described the observation as "a step back in
cosmic time".
I suggest that the giant star must be older than the "Big Bang" and
that it does not violate existing models of such objects burning out
as they age... as the BBC writer describes.....
"Models assume GRBs arise when giant stars burn out and collapse
During collapse, super-fast jets of matter burst out from the stars
Collisions occur with gas already shed by the dying behemoths
The interaction generates the energetic signals detected by Swift
Remnants of the huge stars end their days as black holes."
What is significant is that either the existing model concerning such
events must be discarded as wrong, or it must be accepted, and if so
either the Big Bang pushed back and redefined or acceptance given that
stars and other matter do pre-exist the Big Bang that gave rise to the
largest portion of what we see in our portion of the universe. There
is too much evidence against pushing back the Big Bang to accommodate
such anomalous events so we are left with the theory that some things
that we see in the distant universe did in fact pre-exist the Big
Bang.
[/quote]
Sorry dude, but the larger a star is, the shorter its lifespan. This
can be expressed by the following equation:
E = mc^2.
Pretend our hypothetical sun only burns hydrogen (which is a
reasonable assumption, since this is one of the first stars). Thus,
the mass defect for H -> He fusion is E = m_H * c^2 = 0.0286 * (1.66 x
10^-27) * (3.0 x 10^ ^2 = 4.3 x 10^-12 Joules.
Assuming our star is the largest star ever created gives it a
theoretical upper bound of 200 times the mass of our sun, thus the
total energy produced is E = (Helium mass defect) * c^2 * (total
available mass for fusion (which I assume is 10% of the mass of the
star)) = 0.0071 * (9.0x 10^16) * (200 * 0.1 * 10^30) = 2.5 x 10^46 J.
The Luminosity is given by the following:
log(L/L_{sun}) = n * log(M/M_{sun}), which, for a star 200 x the mass
of the sun yields L = 8 x 10^6. . Remember, n = 3, L = luminosity,
and M is the mass.
Thus, the total luminosity of the star is 8x 10^6 * sun's luminosity 8 x 10^6 * 3.90 * 10^26 J s^-1 = 3.12 x 10^33 J s^-1, and hence, it's
lifespan is E/L = 2.5 x 10^46 J / 3.1 x 10^33 J s^-1 = 260,000 years.
That is quite a bit less then the 630 million years since the big
bang, more then enough time for the star to form, burn, and die. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gordon Stangler... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 9:27 am, dlzc <dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]Dear Morpheal:
On Oct 29, 5:50 am, Morpheal <bobezergai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> In
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm
[snip]
I've seen data that indicates the BB could already have been pushed
back to 14.7 Gy.
[/quote]
Cite please.
[quote]
[snip]
If we can see it at this distance, it must have been *huge*. This
would make its "life span" decades or millenia.
260,000 years. See my above post.[/quote]
[snip the rest]
[quote]
David A. Smith[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 12:45 pm, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 9:27 am,dlzc<dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
Dear Morpheal:
On Oct 29, 5:50 am, Morpheal <bobezergai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> In
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm
[snip]
I've seen data that indicates the BB could already
have been pushed back to 14.7 Gy.
Cite please.
[/quote]
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
Lots of ranges, some overlap. The 13.7 Gy derives from observation
and a choice of cosmological model.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gordon Stangler... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 9:03 pm, dlzc <dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 12:45 pm, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:27 am,dlzc<dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
Dear Morpheal:
On Oct 29, 5:50 am, Morpheal <bobezergai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> In
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm
[snip]
I've seen data that indicates the BB could already
have been pushed back to 14.7 Gy.
Cite please.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
Lots of ranges, some overlap. The 13.7 Gy derives from observation
and a choice of cosmological model.
David A. Smith
[/quote]
Looking at your link, plus a quick search of the interwebz yields
estimated ages between 6,000 yrs, up to 20 Gyr. The best of these,
however, have errors of less then 1.0 Gyr. And all of those point to
13.7 Gyr as the age of the Universe. The best one I have seen,
however, is 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. Your link, as a matter of fact, states
that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Gordon Stangler:
On Oct 31, 10:58 am, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 9:03 pm,dlzc<dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On Oct 30, 12:45 pm, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:27 am,dlzc<dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
Dear Morpheal:
On Oct 29, 5:50 am, Morpheal <bobezergai... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:> In
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8329865.stm
[snip]
I've seen data that indicates the BB could already
have been pushed back to 14.7 Gy.
Cite please.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
Lots of ranges, some overlap. The 13.7 Gy derives
from observation and a choice of cosmological model.
Looking at your link, plus a quick search of the
interwebz yields estimated ages between 6,000 yrs, up
to 20 Gyr.
[/quote]
.... you must have missed the infinite, recycling Universe ones then...
[quote] The best of these, however, have errors of less then
1.0 Gyr. And all of those point to 13.7 Gyr as the age
of the Universe. The best one I have seen, however, is
13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. Your link, as a matter of fact, states
that.
[/quote]
"Best" is a value judgment. Did those "best" theories take into
account the observed variation in the fine structure constant of 1
part in 10^8 since the CMBR quenched, either factoring its effect in,
extending it back to the Big Bang, or explicitly discounting it? Note
that it will affect all the actual *physical measurements* (isotope
decay and such) that directly establish age.
I understand your insistence that the "best" inference is the one with
the smallest error bars, but I don't think Nature cares what you or I
think is best.
GR cannot map to systems larger than a solar system without invoking
Dark Matter and then Dark Energy as the scales grow larger. It is the
best model we have, but please don't fool yourself into thinking it is
the last, best word on the subject. Consequently, its estimate of the
age of the Universe seems like extreme extrapolation to me.
Ultimately, any sort of disagreement is just "old men" arguing over
something that cannot be repeated... and therefore cannot be directly
tested.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gordon Stangler... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 5:22 pm, dlzc <dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]Dear Gordon Stangler:
... you must have missed the infinite, recycling Universe ones then...
[/quote]
I do not count those, since when they hit their "recycling"
singularity, it is impossible to transfer information across a
singularity. [At least, as far as I currently understand Quantum
Information Theory, a subject in which I will admit my knowledge is
quite slim.] Thus, the past universe is cut off from the present
universe completely, and the time in that past universe does not count
for anything.
[quote]
The best of these, however, have errors of less then
1.0 Gyr. And all of those point to 13.7 Gyr as the age
of the Universe. The best one I have seen, however, is
13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. Your link, as a matter of fact, states
that.
"Best" is a value judgment. Did those "best" theories take into
account the observed variation in the fine structure constant of 1
part in 10^8 since the CMBR quenched, either factoring its effect in,
extending it back to the Big Bang, or explicitly discounting it? Note
that it will affect all the actual *physical measurements* (isotope
decay and such) that directly establish age.
[/quote]
Yes, I am sure they do. I haven't kept up with the proliferation of
papers in Cosmology, much to my chagrin. I completely agree that
physical measurements are much better then calculated theories.
[quote]I understand your insistence that the "best" inference is the one with
the smallest error bars, but I don't think Nature cares what you or I
think is best.
[/quote]
Agreed. Nature does not give a whit what we hope or think. It is
screwed up enough as is.
Although, I think you will agree with me that there are some
measurements that are done that have better precision than others.
For these, they lead to smaller error bars because of the better (more
accurate and precise) data. I consider those to be more reliable then
methods with larger error. That has been drilled into me by years of
labs, and will probably never go away.
[quote]
GR cannot map to systems larger than a solar system without invoking
Dark Matter and then Dark Energy as the scales grow larger. It is the
best model we have, but please don't fool yourself into thinking it is
the last, best word on the subject. Consequently, its estimate of the
age of the Universe seems like extreme extrapolation to me.
[/quote]
I find comfort in the elegance of the derivations. Although I am not
a big fan of Dark Energy, it appears to be useful. Again, Cosmology
is not my strong suit. As of late, I find myself being drawn to
interplanetary and space engineering.
[quote]Ultimately, any sort of disagreement is just "old men" arguing over
something that cannot be repeated... and therefore cannot be directly
tested.
[/quote]
I completely agree, friend. Even though I am not yet 30, my beard has
some gray in it. (Of course it also has red hairs, but that is
neither here nor there.)
[quote]
David A. Smith
[/quote]
-Gordon
PS: Where did your handle originate? It has a very XKCD-ish ring to
it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Gordon Stangler:
On Oct 31, 8:08 pm, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:22 pm,dlzc<dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
... you must have missed the infinite, recycling
Universe ones then...
I do not count those, since when they hit their
"recycling" singularity, it is impossible to transfer
information across a singularity. [At least, as far
as I currently understand Quantum Information
Theory, a subject in which I will admit my knowledge
is quite slim.] Thus, the past universe is cut off from
the present universe completely, and the time in that
past universe does not count for anything.
[/quote]
Well, you mentioned the "6000 year" blokes...
[quote] The best of these, however, have errors of less then
1.0 Gyr. And all of those point to 13.7 Gyr as the age
of the Universe. The best one I have seen, however, is
13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. Your link, as a matter of fact, states
that.
"Best" is a value judgment. Did those "best" theories
take into account the observed variation in the fine
structure constant of 1 part in 10^8 since the CMBR
quenched, either factoring its effect in, extending it
back to the Big Bang, or explicitly discounting it? Note
that it will affect all the actual *physical measurements*
(isotope decay and such) that directly establish age.
Yes, I am sure they do. I haven't kept up with the
proliferation of papers in Cosmology, much to my
chagrin.
[/quote]
Why?
[quote]I completely agree that physical measurements are
much better then calculated theories.
[/quote]
Maybe. A forest is made of many trees. All these trees surround a
singular event.
[quote]I understand your insistence that the "best" inference
is the one with the smallest error bars, but I don't think
Nature cares what you or I think is best.
Agreed. Nature does not give a whit what we hope or
think. It is screwed up enough as is.
Although, I think you will agree with me that there are
some measurements that are done that have better
precision than others. For these, they lead to smaller
error bars because of the better (more accurate and
precise) data.
[/quote]
But are still based on *assumptions* of a child-race that has not even
left their planet.
[quote] I consider those to be more reliable then methods
with larger error. That has been drilled into me by
years of labs, and will probably never go away.
[/quote]
The assumptions are key.
[quote]GR cannot map to systems larger than a solar
system without invoking Dark Matter and then
Dark Energy as the scales grow larger. It is the
best model we have, but please don't fool yourself
into thinking it is the last, best word on the subject.
Consequently, its estimate of the age of the
Universe seems like extreme extrapolation to me.
I find comfort in the elegance of the derivations.
Although I am not a big fan of Dark Energy, it appears
to be useful.
[/quote]
Its other name is the "cosmological constant"...
[quote] Again, Cosmology is not my strong suit. As of late,
I find myself being drawn to interplanetary and space
engineering.
[/quote]
Then I doff my hat to you.
[quote]Ultimately, any sort of disagreement is just "old
men" arguing over something that cannot be
repeated... and therefore cannot be directly
tested.
I completely agree, friend. Even though I am not
yet 30, my beard has some gray in it. (Of course
it also has red hairs, but that is neither here nor there.)
[/quote]
It describes a tendency towards argument. Having had a few of those
myself.
[quote]PS: Where did your handle originate? It has a
very XKCD-ish ring to it.
[/quote]
Not worth mentioning in a public forum. I had kind of thought it
might ring of the Bizzaro world...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
.... but not at the time I coined it.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Gordon Stangler... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 11:33 pm, dlzc <dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
[quote]Dear Gordon Stangler:
On Oct 31, 8:08 pm, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
I am going to snip the excess conversation. I hope you do not mind.
[quote]
Well, you mentioned the "6000 year" blokes...
[/quote]
Only in jest. The idea of expanding and collapsing universes is a
unique, and currently untestable, but palatable idea. The idea of a
6000 year old universe with manipulated evidence is an idea so stupid
that it boggles my mind.
[quote]
Yes, I am sure they do. I haven't kept up with the
proliferation of papers in Cosmology, much to my
chagrin.
Why?
[/quote]
I currently do day labor, as a garbage man. I work ten hours a day,
5-6 days a week. When I have free time, I work on getting my business
ideas off the ground, and work on my designs on interplanetary ships.
[quote]
I completely agree that physical measurements are
much better then calculated theories.
Maybe. A forest is made of many trees. All these trees surround a
singular event.
[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean by this.
[quote]
Agreed. Nature does not give a whit what we hope or
think. It is screwed up enough as is.
Although, I think you will agree with me that there are
some measurements that are done that have better
precision than others. For these, they lead to smaller
error bars because of the better (more accurate and
precise) data.
But are still based on *assumptions* of a child-race that has not even
left their planet.
[/quote]
Something I hope to have a hand in rectifying.
[quote] I consider those to be more reliable then methods
with larger error. That has been drilled into me by
years of labs, and will probably never go away.
The assumptions are key.
[/quote]
A key to unlocking great mysteries.
[quote]
I find comfort in the elegance of the derivations.
Although I am not a big fan of Dark Energy, it appears
to be useful.
Its other name is the "cosmological constant"...
[/quote]
Yeah, I know. I look at it as a constant in integration. Maybe
useful, maybe useless.
[quote] Again, Cosmology is not my strong suit. As of late,
I find myself being drawn to interplanetary and space
engineering.
Then I doff my hat to you.
[/quote]
Thank you. What exactly do you do, if I may ask?
[quote]
I completely agree, friend. Even though I am not
yet 30, my beard has some gray in it. (Of course
it also has red hairs, but that is neither here nor there.)
It describes a tendency towards argument. Having had a few of those
myself.
[/quote]
Heh. I am actually a very meek, and shy person.
[quote]PS: Where did your handle originate? It has a
very XKCD-ish ring to it.
Not worth mentioning in a public forum. I had kind of thought it
might ring of the Bizzaro world...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro_World
... but not at the time I coined it.
[/quote]
Good enough for me.
> David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dlzc... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Gordon Stangler:
On Nov 2, 11:10 pm, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 11:33 pm,dlzc<dl... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:08 pm, Gordon Stangler <gordon.stang... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I am going to snip the excess conversation. I hope you
do not mind.
[/quote]
Supposed to.
[quote]Well, you mentioned the "6000 year" blokes...
Only in jest. The idea of expanding and collapsing
universes is a unique, and currently untestable, but
palatable idea.
[/quote]
I find that on the "compression stroke", all life will end in the
Universe. SO an "infinitely" expanding one will allow life to exist
longer.
[quote] The idea of a 6000 year old universe with
manipulated evidence is an idea so stupid
that it boggles my mind.
[/quote]
Some people need a solid past. Unalterable, unquestionable,
completely known. They scare me.
[quote]Yes, I am sure they do. I haven't kept up with the
proliferation of papers in Cosmology, much to my
chagrin.
Why?
I currently do day labor, as a garbage man. I work ten
hours a day, 5-6 days a week. When I have free time,
I work on getting my business ideas off the ground,
and work on my designs on interplanetary ships.
[/quote]
Next time we discuss manned trips to Mars or moons of one of the gas
giants, I hope you'll chime in...
[quote]I completely agree that physical measurements are
much better then calculated theories.
Maybe. A forest is made of many trees. All these
trees surround a singular event.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
[/quote]
All the measurements surround the GR-based assessment of the
"duration" since the Big Bang. That GR+DM+DE is right, I don't
expect. That GR+DM+DE is close, I do.
....
[quote] I consider those to be more reliable then methods
with larger error. That has been drilled into me by
years of labs, and will probably never go away.
The assumptions are key.
A key to unlocking great mysteries.
[/quote]
A key to self-adopted blindness, also.
....
[quote] Again, Cosmology is not my strong suit. As of late,
I find myself being drawn to interplanetary and space
engineering.
Then I doff my hat to you.
Thank you. What exactly do you do, if I may ask?
[/quote]
Currently packaging equipment to make and destroy ozone for various
purposes, including life support for aquariums and zoos. I analyzed
sewer networks for a time too a while back.
[quote]I completely agree, friend. Even though I am not
yet 30, my beard has some gray in it. (Of course
it also has red hairs, but that is neither here nor there.)
It describes a tendency towards argument. Having
had a few of those myself.
Heh. I am actually a very meek, and shy person.
[/quote]
Better get over that, with the "dreams" you have about space travel.
Inertia occurs in the head too... and inertia (and friction) traps us
here.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:43 am
|
|