How can a star in the Milkyway be nearly as old as the universe?


by broncorvette
Tags: milkyway, star, universe
broncorvette
broncorvette is offline
#1
Nov26-12, 10:23 AM
P: 4
A star by the name of HE-1523-0901 is a star only about half a billion years younger than the universe. I understand that the universe expanded faster than light after the big-bang, but I am having a hard time understanding how one star from this time period may have wound up in the Milkyway. It seems improbable.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703414
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
A star's early chemistry shapes life-friendly atmospheres
Unique pair of supermassive black holes in an ordinary galaxy discovered
Red stars and big bulges: How black holes shape galaxies
phinds
phinds is offline
#2
Nov26-12, 10:37 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,715
Since the star is about the same age as the milky way, I don't see the problem.
Bill_K
Bill_K is offline
#3
Nov26-12, 10:49 AM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
Bill_K's Avatar
P: 3,860
It's unusual for an individual star to live that long. The very oldest stars are metal poor, and so it's doubly remarkable that this star has enough U and Th to make an accurate determination of its age possible.

Mordred
Mordred is offline
#4
Nov26-12, 10:50 AM
PF Gold
Mordred's Avatar
P: 1,563

How can a star in the Milkyway be nearly as old as the universe?


http://www.space.com/263-milky-age-narrowed.html

the Milky way is among one of the oldest galaxies see link above
phinds
phinds is offline
#5
Nov26-12, 11:20 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,715
Quote Quote by Bill_K View Post
It's unusual for an individual star to live that long. The very oldest stars are metal poor, and so it's doubly remarkable that this star has enough U and Th to make an accurate determination of its age possible.
Good point. I didn't think of it that way, and since the OP didn't give any reason for his puzzlement, it's not clear that he did either.
broncorvette
broncorvette is offline
#6
Nov26-12, 02:15 PM
P: 4
Quote Quote by Mordred View Post
http://www.space.com/263-milky-age-narrowed.html

the Milky way is among one of the oldest galaxies see link above
This answered my question perfectly. I found it strange that we would be "lucky" enough to be so close to the origin of the universe. So, though poorly worded, that was my question. As for the thorium and uranium measurements, i did consider that it would be hard for enough to exist to measure correctly, but I don't know enough on dating material in this manner to really offer any real question on it. I supposed that should there be a fault in this type of dating, someone would bring it up as a possible reason behind the age of the star.
Chronos
Chronos is offline
#7
Nov26-12, 02:47 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,185
I believe 500 million years is enough time for a significant number of first generation stars to form and to go supernova.
phinds
phinds is offline
#8
Nov26-12, 03:24 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 5,715
Quote Quote by broncorvette View Post
This answered my question perfectly. I found it strange that we would be "lucky" enough to be so close to the origin of the universe. So, though poorly worded, that was my question. As for the thorium and uranium measurements, i did consider that it would be hard for enough to exist to measure correctly, but I don't know enough on dating material in this manner to really offer any real question on it. I supposed that should there be a fault in this type of dating, someone would bring it up as a possible reason behind the age of the star.
Keep in mind that "we", if you extend that to mean not just us but our solar system, were NOT created near the temporal beginning of the universe, even though we are in a galaxy that was. Our solar system is less than 5 billion years old.
goldsax
goldsax is offline
#9
Nov27-12, 05:19 AM
P: 50
HE-1523-0901 is a Pop II star.
our Galaxy is thought to have grown by the accretion of surrounding material.
we have collection of stars called globuler cluster of which there are about 150-200 around our Galaxy.
these globuler clusters very in age . and is an indication that all the stars in the Galaxy were not all formed at the same time, but rather the galxy also grew by accretion of older matter ..
D H
D H is offline
#10
Nov27-12, 07:34 AM
Mentor
P: 14,476
Quote Quote by broncorvette View Post
I found it strange that we would be "lucky" enough to be so close to the origin of the universe. So, though poorly worded, that was my question.
You appear to be thinking that the big bang was an explosion in space about some center of the universe. A much better way to look at things: The big bang was an explosion of space, and there is no center of the universe. (Alternatively, every point in the universe can be viewed as the center.)
age123
age123 is offline
#11
Nov27-12, 04:41 PM
P: 10
Really interesting, thanks!
broncorvette
broncorvette is offline
#12
Nov27-12, 10:43 PM
P: 4
Quote Quote by D H View Post
You appear to be thinking that the big bang was an explosion in space about some center of the universe. A much better way to look at things: The big bang was an explosion of space, and there is no center of the universe. (Alternatively, every point in the universe can be viewed as the center.)
That helps quite a bit. Thanks. Im new to this arena (studying economics), but i find it interesting, and hopefully i can gain some knowledge through this forum, it is all appreciated.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Neutron star: smoothest surface in the universe? Astrophysics 29
total energy by milkyway Astrophysics 1
Beyond the Star Trek Universe - Lawrence Krauss Science Fiction & Fantasy 20
Where is Taurus in the Milkyway General Astronomy 4
A question about MilkyWay General Astronomy 2