Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 | Reason : Astronomy | print version Print | Comments

Document A galactic fossil - Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old

by PhysOrg.com

Thanks to Ranjani for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news98033554.html

The Cosmic Clock

From left: Recent cosmological studies show that the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The metal-poor star HE 1523 formed in our Milky Way galaxy soon afterward, cosmologically speaking: 13.2 billion years ago. The primitive star contained the radioactive heavy elements uranium and thorium, and the amounts of those elements decay over time, each according to its own half-life. Today, astronomer Anna Frebel of the the University of Texas at Austin McDonald Observatory and her colleagues have deduced the star's age based on the amounts of radioactive elements it contains compared to certain other "anchor" elements, specifically europium, osmium and iridium. The study of the star's chemical make-up was made using the UVES spectrograph on the Kueyen Telescope, part of ESO's Very Large Telescope, at Paranal, in Chile. Credit: (c) ESO

How old are the oldest stars" Using ESO's VLT, astronomers recently measured the age of a star located in our Galaxy. The star, a real fossil, is found to be 13.2 billion years old, not very far from the 13.7 billion years age of the Universe. The star, HE 1523-0901, was clearly born at the dawn of time.

"Surprisingly, it is very hard to pin down the age of a star", the lead author of the paper reporting the results, Anna Frebel, explains. "This requires measuring very precisely the abundance of the radioactive elements thorium or uranium, a feat only the largest telescopes such as ESO's VLT can achieve."

This technique is analogous to the carbon-14 dating method that has been so successful in archaeology over time spans of up to a few tens of thousands of years. In astronomy, however, this technique must obviously be applied to vastly longer timescales.

For the method to work well, the right choice of radioactive isotope is critical. Unlike other, stable elements that formed at the same time, the abundance of a radioactive (unstable) isotope decreases all the time. The faster the decay, the less there will be left of the radioactive isotope after a certain time, so the greater will be the abundance difference when compared to a stable isotope, and the more accurate is the resulting age.

Yet, for the clock to remain useful, the radioactive element must not decay too fast - there must still be enough left of it to allow an accurate measurement, even after several billion years.

"Actual age measurements are restricted to the very rare objects that display huge amounts of the radioactive elements thorium or uranium," says Norbert Christlieb, co-author of the report.

Large amounts of these elements have been found in the star HE 1523-0901, an old, relatively bright star that was discovered within the Hamburg/ESO survey [1]. The star was then observed with UVES on the Very Large Telescope (VLT) for a total of 7.5 hours.

A high quality spectrum was obtained that could never have been achieved without the combination of the large collecting power Kueyen, one of the individual 8.2-m Unit Telescopes of the VLT, and the extremely good sensitivity of UVES in the ultraviolet spectral region, where the lines from the elements are observed.

For the first time, the age dating involved both radioactive elements in combination with the three other neutron-capture elements europium, osmium, and iridium.

"Until now, it has not been possible to measure more than a single cosmic clock for a star. Now, however, we have managed to make six measurements in this one star"," says Frebel.

Ever since the star was born, these "clocks" have ticked away over the eons, unaffected by the turbulent history of the Milky Way. They now read 13.2 billion years.

The Universe being 13.7 billion years old, this star clearly formed very early in the life of our own Galaxy, which must also formed very soon after the Big Bang.

Source: European Southern Observatory (ESO)

Comments 1 - 23 of 23 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #43884 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 3:26 am

 avatarWhat's this thing doing on our galaxy then?

Other Comments by sane1

2. Comment #43895 by eggplantbren on May 23, 2007 at 3:41 am

 avatarMost stars are found in galaxies. :)

Other Comments by eggplantbren

3. Comment #43902 by GodlessHeathen on May 23, 2007 at 3:48 am

 avatar
1. Comment #43884 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 3:26 am
What's this thing doing on our galaxy then?
Mostly converting hydrogen into helium, I would imagine. =^.^=

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

4. Comment #43952 by mjwemdee on May 23, 2007 at 4:47 am

 avatarWow. This truly passeth my understanding.

Can anyone explain - in terms a dummkopf like me can follow - how certain stars can be described as 'fossils'? Surely all stars are either in the process of being born or dying? What is the accepted time-line beyond which they become seen as fossils?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

5. Comment #43953 by Hugo on May 23, 2007 at 4:48 am

 avatar
"Surprisingly, it is very hard to pin down the age of a star"


I don't find that surprising at all.

Other Comments by Hugo

6. Comment #43956 by BaronOchs on May 23, 2007 at 4:54 am

 avatarI guess this star is extremely rare, but how much older might a star get? Or might this just be *drumroll* the oldest star in the universe?!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

7. Comment #43970 by NewSkeptic on May 23, 2007 at 5:29 am

Maybe it's not so much a 'fossil', as it is a 'living fossil'; just like the coelocanth (sp?), the crocodile and the shark.

Astronomy just keeps getting better and better, and this discovery comes from the ground based ESO! Just wait until the James Webb is in orbit. Anyone want to take a guess what will come from that? I can't, but I know I can barely wait. :-)

Other Comments by NewSkeptic

8. Comment #43988 by stephenray on May 23, 2007 at 6:12 am

They're being poetic, describing it as a fossil. It's a record of an earlier era.
What amazes me is that there were enough heavy elements around, 13.2 billion years ago, for the star to have any at all.
It's agreed - I understand - that for a substantial amount of time after the big bang, hydrogen and helium were rushing outwards, and for - I thought - a couple hundred million years the universe was dark, until the first stars started to glow. Anything heavier than helium was manufactured by nuclear fusion in the guts of a star, and released when the larger stars exploded at the end of their lives. Then and only then would there be sufficient heavy elements around to get incorporated in new stars.
Must have been a hell of a place, the milky way in those few hundred million years, stars surging into existence and sparking out and spreading the stardust of the periodic table throughout the galaxy...
...of course, it was just an afterthought on God's part 'cos he was focussing on ordering snakes to crawl on their bellies...

Other Comments by stephenray

9. Comment #43996 by eggplantbren on May 23, 2007 at 6:36 am

 avatarThe more massive stars have very short lifetimes before they go supernova.

Other Comments by eggplantbren

10. Comment #44009 by bluebird on May 23, 2007 at 7:16 am

 avatarFor anyone not familiar with Astronomy Picture of the Day (NASA):

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Other Comments by bluebird

11. Comment #44062 by ghostbuster on May 23, 2007 at 8:41 am

Sure took God more time than a day to fling these things into the sky.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

12. Comment #44091 by Logicel on May 23, 2007 at 9:58 am

 avatarThanks for that link, bluebird.

Other Comments by Logicel

13. Comment #44134 by shade51 on May 23, 2007 at 11:33 am

What do scientists know? And anyway, even if it could be proven that this star is that old, it doesn't mean that the bible is wrong. Who would you rather believe, a bunch of godless scientists or the Creator of the universe? God says that the earth is about 6000 years old, so even if the universe is 13 billion years old, that just means that God spent all that time planning and designing us "just right" so that we can have the beautiful and perfect world we're all living in today.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Other Comments by shade51

14. Comment #44135 by CJ on May 23, 2007 at 11:58 am

 avatarRe: 1. Comment #43884 by sane1 on May 23, 2007 at 3:26 am

What's this thing doing on our galaxy then?

Nothing now, it died billions of years ago.

Other Comments by CJ

15. Comment #44139 by micronut on May 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Shade 51 :
we can have the beautiful and perfect world we're all living in today.


Yes, so perfect and beautiful that some sick bastards have kidnapped an innocent child. Can your dog (sorry, god) tell us where little Madeleine is? I promise you if he can, I will worship him for the rest of my life!!

Other Comments by micronut

16. Comment #44140 by RickM on May 23, 2007 at 12:22 pm

 avatarI have real problems with this article. They seem to be implying that this star is 13.2 byo. Also that the Milky Way is 13.2 byo. I'm not buying that.

The heavy elements they are using to determine age do not form in stars. Fusion burning stops at Iron. Heavier elements form in Super Nova (the death of stars). Therefore, these elements where accreted as this star began to form. Which does not say it was a star when it began to accrete the heavier elements; it was part of a hot cloud of gas and material that eventually became a star. There is no telling what generation this star is, as it may have accreted material from 2nd, 3rd generation stars that went Super Nova.

It also seems to imply that the Milky Way is 13.2 byo.

If the article had said the star "contains" material that is 13.2 byo, that makes sense. Also, the Milky Way "contains" material that old as well. Nothing new there.

I think I read elsewhere that this star is super-massive, and, as mentioned earlier, these big guys don't last long.

Other Comments by RickM

17. Comment #44168 by micronut on May 23, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Oops, sorry Shade51, I misinterpreted your sarcasm!!

Other Comments by micronut

18. Comment #44178 by stephenray on May 23, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Yah, my bad RickM, I forgot about iron+ elements being made in supernova.

The point you made about where it got its constituent material from bothered me, too. I didn't have time to read the whole article, but I assumed that they had some cross-check that eliminated the possibility that they were detecting the age of the heavy elements and not the age of the star.

However, one assumes that at least some of the stars in all galaxies are older than their galaxy, since it would not have been merely gases and dark matter that coalesced to form galaxies, but existing stars as well.

Other Comments by stephenray

19. Comment #44180 by D'Arcy on May 23, 2007 at 2:40 pm

 avatarHealthy scepticism from RickM. That's the way science advances. However I'm not sure of Rick's difficulty. The more massive a star the quicker its burns up its nuclear fuel and explodes as a super nova creating the heavier elements found in later generations of stars and planets and eventually life. This particular star HE 1523, is obviously at least 2nd generation because it contains these heavier elements. I have read that a supa nova can have as short a life as 100,000 years.

What's this thing doing on our galaxy then?


Presumably, the materials that make up our galaxy are as old as any other galaxy, even if not all the stars are.

Isn't it great, we're all made of stardust! No room for God with all that dust.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

20. Comment #44207 by Funny Grievous on May 23, 2007 at 4:06 pm

 avatarWOW! That is a really old star! I didn't think even a burnt out star could last that long. Just another reason I love astronomy!

Other Comments by Funny Grievous

21. Comment #44209 by Kakashi_monkey on May 23, 2007 at 4:12 pm

 avatarThere had to be first stars, and here is one. Interesting how non-metal its composition was. Most stars today expand late in their lives when they burn heavier and heavier elements, mostly metals. This star must have just puffed away.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

22. Comment #44277 by padster1976 on May 24, 2007 at 3:16 am

 avatarAs far as I am aware, early stellar evolution theorises that the first stars were super massive. Egg plant is slightly incorrect in saying that the more massive the star the shorter the life cycle. One does not automatically follow from the other.

The earth is around 4.5 billion years old with the sun a little older than that. That would put the expected lifetime of the sun to be 9 - 10 billion years old. But you have to remember, its only 5 billion now. This star is over twice the age.

What I would be more interested in is the position of this star in relation to the galactic plane and centre. This would tell alot with regards to galaxy formation. I would surmise that this star had siblings that went on to explode and provide the material for star formation that we now call the milky way.

One thing that confuses me though - we look further away to see further back in time. Therefore, if the 'past' is distant, how can this 'fossil' be so near?

Its probably just lis application of logic but do you see what I mean?

Thinking about it now, I know there's something there about the time light travels but I can't shake the feeling that something that old, cannot be that near. I didn't think our galaxy was that old. Expansion of the universe, galaxy formations.

Hmm, still confused.

Other Comments by padster1976

23. Comment #44602 by Kakashi_monkey on May 25, 2007 at 5:24 am

 avatarThe star's age was also measured with radioactive decay and radioactive elements in the star, which measure it to be over 13 billion years old. Your theory of this star being a donor of its materials to form our galaxy. The light we recieved of it was 13 billion years old; it's possible it has been shining light in our galaxy for all of its time here, and we just now picked it up. The star is old, but maybe not the light of it we picked up.

Just a thought.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE