First stars now thought to be 400 MLY after BB?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chaos' lil bro Order
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stars
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the emergence of the first stars, known as Population III, which are now believed to have formed approximately 400 million light-years after the Big Bang, a revision from the previous estimate of 200 million light-years. These stars were primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with trace amounts of lithium and beryllium, maintaining a mass ratio of about 3:1 for hydrogen to helium. Current cosmological estimates support the higher end of the formation timeline, around 400 million years post-Big Bang. The conversation also clarifies that light-years measure distance, not time, despite the complexities introduced by cosmic inflation. Overall, the understanding of the first stars' composition and formation timeline has evolved significantly based on recent findings.
Chaos' lil bro Order
Messages
682
Reaction score
2
excellent websitehttp://www.solstation.com/x-objects/first.htm

According to the site, WMAP's results show that the first stars (Population III) appeared about 400 million LightYears after the BB, instead of the 200 million LightYears previously thought.

I have a question about this...

Was the first star purely Hyrdrogen based? What is known about the composition of the first star(s)?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Was the first star purely Hyrdrogen based? What is known about the composition of the first star(s)?

The first stars were composed of the elements generated in primordial nucleosynthesis -- that is, almost entirely hydrogen and helium. There were tiny abundances of lithium and beryllium as well. By mass, the ratio of hydrogen to helium was about 3:1.
 
Roger that ST, ty.

Do cosmologists think the first stars were born 200-400 million LYs post BB? Is that the currently accepted view?
 
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Do cosmologists think the first stars were born 200-400 million LYs post BB? Is that the currently accepted view?

That's right, somewhere in that ballpark. Current estimates favor the high end of that range, ~400 million years. Note that light years is a measure of distance, not time.
 
SpaceTiger said:
That's right, somewhere in that ballpark. Current estimates favor the high end of that range, ~400 million years. Note that light years is a measure of distance, not time.


Can't LY be a measurement of both, or does this lose meaning during Inflation when space (may?) have expanded superluminally?
 
Correct. The universe was much larger [think VERY much larger] than 380,000 light years when it was 380,000 years old due to inflation and expansion. But the redshift does not lie. It still reflects the relative age of the universe at the time the photons we now observe were liberated.
 
Chaos' lil bro Order said:
Can't LY be a measurement of both, or does this lose meaning during Inflation when space (may?) have expanded superluminally?

A light year is the distance that light travels in a year. The analogous unit of time is just a "year".
 

Similar threads

B Simulating the Universe's First Stars - The Population III Stars
Replies
5
Views
160
Dark Age: Galaxy & Quasar Formation ?
Replies
2
Views
4K
I Some questions about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation
Replies
13
Views
6K
New Satellite Data On Universe's First Trillionth Second
Replies
2
Views
3K
Do Cows Contribute More to Global Warming Than Industrial Pollutants?
Replies
3
Views
18K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 259)
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 257)
Replies
5
Views
4K
Schools PGRE - A message to undergrads from physics grad school.
Replies
25
Views
8K
Seaport 2.5 Miles Above Sea Level(?)
Replies
10
Views
10K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 258)
Replies
4
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top