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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter broncorvette
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Star Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the age of the star HE-1523-0901, which is nearly as old as the universe, and the implications of its existence within the Milky Way galaxy. Participants explore the relationship between the star's age, the formation of the Milky Way, and the processes involved in stellar dating, including the presence of uranium and thorium.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how a star from near the universe's origin could exist in the Milky Way, suggesting it seems improbable.
  • Another participant argues that since the star is about the same age as the Milky Way, there is no inherent problem with its existence.
  • It is noted that the oldest stars are typically metal poor, making the age determination of HE-1523-0901 particularly remarkable due to its uranium and thorium content.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of the Milky Way being one of the oldest galaxies and how this relates to the formation of stars and supernovae over time.
  • There is a mention of globular clusters around the Milky Way, indicating that stars did not all form simultaneously but rather through the accretion of older material.
  • A participant clarifies a misconception about the Big Bang, emphasizing that it was an explosion of space without a central point, which helps contextualize the discussion about the universe's expansion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and differing viewpoints. While some find the existence of HE-1523-0901 in the Milky Way to be plausible, others question the implications of its age and the processes of stellar formation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the broader implications of the star's age and the nature of the Big Bang.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention limitations in understanding stellar dating methods and the complexities of the Milky Way's formation, indicating that there may be unresolved assumptions or dependencies on definitions within the discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying astrophysics, cosmology, or the formation of galaxies and stars, as well as individuals curious about the early universe and stellar evolution.

broncorvette
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
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
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Since the star is about the same age as the milky way, I don't see the problem.
 
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.
 
Bill_K said:
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.
 
Mordred said:
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.
 
I believe 500 million years is enough time for a significant number of first generation stars to form and to go supernova.
 
broncorvette said:
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.
 
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 ..
 
  • #10
broncorvette said:
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.)
 
  • #11
Really interesting, thanks!
 
  • #12
D H said:
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. I am 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.
 

Similar threads

High School Distance of Stars / Size of the Universe calculation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad J0524-0336, surprisingly high Li concentration
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad How Can We Measure Properties of Distant Planets and Stars?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
High School NGC 4590, more than 1,400 stars found in various evolutionary stages
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate The Fastest Unbound Stars in the Universe
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Luminous Fast Blue Optical Transients (LFBOTs)
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
895
Undergrad Are Red Dwarfs Home to Earth-Sized Water Worlds?
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Undergrad Can proton/neutron decay be avoided in some conditions?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
High School Acceleration of time due to entropy
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad The age old age of the universe question
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K