Weekly News via Email
   Set as homepage | Add to favorites | Customer Service | Subscribe Now | Place an Ad | Contact Us | Sitemap Sunday, 02.18.2018
News Archive
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
 1  2  3  4  5  6
 7  8  9  10  11  12  13
 14  15  16  17  18  19  20
 21  22  23  24  25  26  27
 28  29  30  31
Online Extras
Site Services
Around Bend
Outdoor Fun
Travel Info
Shop Local

Members Of

Poll: Today's Live Poll
Email to a friend | Print this | PDF version | Comments (0 posted) 
  Blogger |   del.icio.us |   digg |   newsvine

Jan 05,2007
First stars may have been supergiants, researchers say
by World-Science.net

New tel­e­scope ob­ser­va­tions have bol­stered a claim that as­tro­no­mers have seen the uni­verse’s first lu­mi­nous ob­ject­s—pos­sib­ly gar­gan­tu­an stars, re­search­ers say.

If the find­ings prove cor­rect, sci­en­tists add, they might fit with a the­o­ry that such stars seeded the growth of the big­gest, so-called su­per­mas­sive, black holes. Black holes are ob­jects so heavy and com­pact that their grav­i­ty sucks in eve­ry­thing near­by, in­clud­ing light.

The bot­tom pan­el is an im­age from NASA's Spitzer Space Tel­e­scope, of stars and galax­ies in the Ur­sa Ma­jor con­stel­la­tion. This in­fra­red im­age co­vers a re­gion of space so large that light would take up to 100 mil­lion years to trav­el across it. The top pan­el is the same im­age af­ter stars, galax­ies and oth­er sources were masked out. The re­main­ing back­ground light, ac­cord­ing to some as­tro­no­mers, is from a time when the uni­verse was less than a bil­lion years old, and prob­a­bly orig­i­nat­ed from the uni­verse's first groups of ob­jects. Darker shades in the top im­age cor­re­spond to dim­mer parts of the glow; yel­low and white show the bright­est.
But some re­search­ers said they’re not con­vinced the find­ings are cor­rect.

Ac­cord­ing to those who reached them, their new ob­ser­va­tions, from NASA’s Spitzer Space Tel­e­scope, strongly sug­gest clumps of the pri­mord­ial ob­jects—pos­sib­ly stars or black holes—are res­pon­si­ble for in­fra­red light seen in an ear­li­er stu­dy. 

In­fra­red is a form of light too low in en­er­gy to be di­rect­ly vis­i­ble, but de­tect­a­ble with suit­a­ble in­stru­ments.

The new da­ta show this patchy light is splat­tered sky-wide and comes from clus­ters of bright, mon­s­trous ob­jects more than 13 bil­lion light-years away, the as­t­ro­no­mers said. A light-year is the dis­tance light trav­els in a year. 

This would mean the light from those bo­dies has been tra­v­el­ing 13 bil­lion years, im­ply­ing in turn that we see them as they were that many years ago.

“We are push­ing our tel­e­scopes to the lim­it and are tan­ta­liz­ing­ly close to get­ting a clear pic­ture of the ve­ry first col­lec­tions of ob­jects,” said Al­ex­an­der Ka­sh­lin­s­ky of NA­SA’s God­dard Space Flight Cen­ter in Green­belt, Md. 

“What­ever these ob­jects are, they are in­t­rin­si­cal­ly in­c­red­i­bly bright and very dif­fer­ent from an­y­thing in ex­is­t­ence to­day,” added Ka­sh­lin­s­ky, the lead au­thor of two re­ports on the work to ap­pear in As­t­ro­phys­i­cal Jour­nal Let­ters, a re­search pub­li­ca­tion.

The ob­jects, he argued, are ei­ther the first stars—ti­tanic ones weigh­ing more than 1,000 times our sun—or black holes vo­ra­cious­ly con­sum­ing gas, a pro­cess that would al­so pro­duce in­tense light in their area.

If they’re stars, the clus­ters might be the first mini-galax­ies, weigh­ing less than about one mil­lion suns, he added; merg­ers of such galax­ies prob­a­bly made big­ger ones like our Milky Way, which holds the equi­v­a­lent of some 100 bil­lion suns.

The ear­li­er stu­dy, al­so by Ka­sh­lin­sky’s team, ap­peared in the jour­nal Na­ture in No­v­em­ber 2005.

Sci­en­tists es­ti­mate that the uni­verse be­gan 13.7 bil­lion years ago in an ex­plo­sion, the “Big Bang.” Stars formed a few hun­dred mil­lion years lat­er, end­ing the so-called cos­mic dark age. Kash­lin­sky’s group stud­ied the “cos­mic in­fra­red back­ground” light, a dif­fuse glow that they said comes from this ear­ly ep­och.

“There’s on­go­ing de­bate about what the first ob­jects were and how galax­ies formed,” said God­dard’s Har­vey Mose­ley, a co-au­thor of the pa­pers. “We are on the right track to fig­ur­ing this out.”

If the ob­jects are stars, they could be a first gen­er­a­tion of stars long sought by as­tro­no­mers and termed “Pop­u­la­tion III” stars. Some the­o­rize that their burnt-out rem­nants gave rise to the su­per­mas­sive black holes, which lurk at the hearts of most galax­ies. The stars, once spent, would col­lapse in­to smaller “seed” black holes, which then swell in­to huge ones by eat­ing up other mat­ter near­by. 

In or­der to form black holes big enough and fast enough to fit with ob­ser­va­tions, these the­o­ries re­ly on the in­i­tial stars them­selves be­ing “su­per­mas­sive,” weigh­ing hun­dreds of suns. Those found in the new stu­dy, if they’re stars, might fit the bill, re­search­ers say.

“There would be quite a link” to the black hole the­o­ry, said Mar­tin Haehnelt, a cos­mol­o­gist with the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cam­bridge, U.K. But he said this would de­pend on Kash­lin­sky’s team hav­ing in­ter­preted its re­sults cor­rectly, and he’s far from sure of that.

Con­tam­i­nat­ing light from ob­jects in the fore­ground can be­dev­il at­tempts to meas­ure the “in­fra­red back­ground,” Haehnelt said. Al­so, he said, Kash­lin­sky’s stu­dy in­volved com­par­ing sig­nals in dif­fer­ent parts of the sky, rath­er than re­solv­ing in­di­vid­u­al ob­jects, and it’s hard to say what such cor­re­la­tions mean.

Kash­lin­sky said his team care­ful­ly erased light from fore­ground stars and galax­ies, leav­ing on­ly the most an­cient light; then stud­ied fluc­tu­a­tions in the bright­ness, re­veal­ing clus­ters of ob­jects. “Imag­ine try­ing to see fire­works at night from across a crowd­ed city,” he said. “If you could turn off the city lights, you might get a glimpse at the fire­works. We have shut down the lights of the uni­verse to see the out­lines of its first fire­works.” 

If they’re stars, they’re prob­a­bly ex­treme­ly mas­sive, Mose­ley said, as small stars shine too in­ef­fi­cient­ly to ex­plain the light seen; also, there are the­o­ret­i­cal rea­sons to be­lieve su­per­mas­sive stars would form. A fu­ture tel­e­scope planned by NASA, the James Webb Space Tel­e­scope, should be able to iden­ti­fy what the clus­ters are, ac­cord­ing to mem­bers of Kash­lin­sky’s group.
2793 times read

Related news
'King' of star explosions seen by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on May 11,2007

Unifying principle said to govern all galaxies by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on Mar 16,2007

Cosmic mystery 'solved' after decades by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on Nov 16,2007

Galaxy seen blasting its neighbor by Bend_Weekly_News_Sources posted on Jan 04,2008

'Superstrings' could raise cosmic clatter by World-science.net posted on Jan 12,2007

Did you enjoy this article? Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00Rating: 5.00 (total 18 votes)

Market Information
Breaking News
Most Popular
Most Commented
Featured Columnist
Horoscope Guide
Aquarius Aquarius Libra Libra
Aries Aries Pisces Pisces
Cancer Cancer Sagittarius Sagittarius
Capricorn Capricorn Scorpio Scorpio
Gemini Gemini Taurus Taurus
Leo Leo Virgo Virgo
Local Attractions
Bend Visitors & Convention Bureau
Bend Visitors & Convention Bureau

Mt. Bachelor Resort
Mt. Bachelor Resort

Les Schwab Ampitheater
Les Schwab Ampitheater

Deschutes County Fairgrounds
Deschutes County

Tower Theatre
Tower Theatre

The High Desert Museum


Deschutes County

  Web    BendWeekly.com
© 2006 Bend Weekly News
A .Com Endeavors, Inc. Company.
All Rights Reserved. Terms under
which this service is provided to you.
Please read our Privacy Policy. Contact us.
Bend Weekly News & Event Guide Online
   Save the Net
External sites open in new window,
not endorsed by BendWeekly.com
Subscribe in NewsGator Online
Add to Google Add to MSN Add to My AOL
What are RSS headlines?