Molecular Hydrogen at the Edge of Universe

[Astronuc]

This might belong in Cosmology, but I'd thought I'd start it here.

Astronomers Find Molecular Hydrogen At Edge Of Universe
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060508112217.htm

Using a quasar located 12.3 billion light-years away as a beacon, a team of astronomers detected the presence of molecular hydrogen in the farthest system ever, an otherwise invisible galaxy that we observe when the Universe was less than 1.5 billion years old, that is, about 10% of its present age.

Well OK, but . . .

The astronomers find that there is about one hydrogen molecule for 250 hydrogen atoms. A similar set of observations for two other quasars, together with the most precise laboratory measurements, allows scientists to infer that the ratio of the proton to electron masses may have changed with time. If confirmed, this would have important consequences on our understanding of physics.

No $#!t !

"Detecting molecular hydrogen and measuring its properties in the most remote parts of the Universe is important to understand the gas environment and determine the rate of star formation in the early Universe", said Cédric Ledoux, lead-author of the paper presenting the results.

Thoughts?

 

[Bystander]

Looks like an "atomic hydrogen torch" thermometer to me.

 

[wolram]

I thought an electron was an elementary particle, so how can it change ?

 

[Astronuc]

It's not clear to me what changed. The articles mentions the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron, or actually "ratio of the proton to electron masses".

I would suspect that the electron did not change, but rather the proton, and really this would imply the strong nuclear force would have changed, i.e. quark confinement.

And I'm still thinking about mass and it's meaning, and how nuclear binding energy is invovled, and how quarks (ostensibly) have mass, and now I have to learn about the Higgs field.

 

[wolram]

The Higgs field as i understand must gravitate, every thing seems to get
strange at this level.

 

[hellfire]

There is a lot of non-standard cosmology addressing this issue of the variation of the electron - proton mass ratio or other dimensionless quantities, see for example Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis. In a closed system like the universe, with no outside reference, the correct variations to be measured are probably only those which are dimensionless quantities. The variation of other quantities depend on the way they are measured and on the standards which are set. Garth makes a lot of effort to bring this issues into our attention in this forum... Just a thought that may be a bit off-topic.

 

[Garth]

I am surprised that the existence of molecular hydrogen at the 0.4% of atomic hydrogen level is such an issue and could lead to such a revolutionary conclusion.

Now the existence of high iron abundance, 3 x solar, at such ranges is interesting! Is the universe older than expected?

APM 8279+5255 is 13.5 thousand million light years away.
..........
XMM-Newton's data showed that iron was three times more abundant in the quasar than in our Solar System.

Just a thought,

Garth

 

[wolram]

Garth that article is 4yrs old any thing new since.

Now the existence of high iron abundance, 3 x solar, at such ranges is interesting! Is the universe older than expected?

 

[Garth]

Garth that article is 4yrs old any thing new since.

Constraints from the Old Quasar Apm 08279+5255 on Two Classes of Lambda(t)-Cosmologies March 2006 published in International Journal of Modern Physics D

Let us now discuss some constraints by considering the quasar APM 08279+5255, as a cosmic clock. Such a quasar, located at z = 3.91, has an estimated age from 2 to 3 Gyr, with a best fit age of 2.1 Gyr

Now the existence of high iron abundance, 3 x solar, at such ranges is interesting! Is the universe older than expected?

By Ned wright's cosmology calculator for a flat universe with H₀ = 71 km/sec/Mpsc and Omega_M = 0.27 the age at z = 3.91 comes out as 1.614 Gyr.

Yes, I believe observations are telling us there is an Age Problem in the early universe and the early universe is older than expected in the mainstream LCDM model.

Of course one could argue for yet more undiscovered physics, untested in the laboratory, which may resolve this problem, such as a new way of making iron quickly. There is a good precedent for such an argument.

Garth

 

[Labguy]

I am surprised that the existence of molecular hydrogen at the 0.4% of atomic hydrogen level is such an issue and could lead to such a revolutionary conclusion.

Now the existence of high iron abundance, 3 x solar, at such ranges is interesting! Is the universe older than expected?


Just a thought,

Garth

The link provided states in part that:

APM 8279+5255 is 13.5 thousand million light years away. Scientists know this because they have estimated a property of its light known as the red shift, which is caused by the expansion of the Universe stretching the wavelengths of light emitted by the celestial object. XMM-Newton's data showed that iron was three times more abundant in the quasar than in our Solar System.

Since iron is released by exploding stars, according to precise physical phenomena, and scientists think it builds up across the Universe gradually with time. The Solar System formed just 5 thousand million years ago, so it should contain more iron than the quasar, which formed over 13.5 thousand million years ago. The fact that the quasar contains three times more iron than the Sun is therefore a major puzzle.

But, Heger and Woosley have a paper which states that nucleosynthesis of Population III stars depends greatly on the He mass and total mass.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...J...567..532H&db_key=AST&high=3cc290f1be15543

This core determines the maximum temperature reached during the bounce. At the upper range of exploding core masses, a maximum of 57 M_solar of ⁵⁶Ni is produced, making these the most energetic and the brightest thermonuclear explosions in the universe.

It could be (unknown at present) that a majority of Population III stars are (were) at the "upper mass" category where much ⁵⁶Ni is produced. The article doesn't equate the two, but ⁵⁶Ni quickly decays to ⁵⁶Fe, even in the lesser supernovae we observe today. If that is so, it could explain the high Fe abundance very soon after first star formation. Especially true since the "high mass" stars live the shortest period of time.