I think so..... the HR Diagram, life and death of stars are not things astronomers seem to disagree about.
Are they able to determine reasonably precisely when the red dwarfs in our
galaxy were born?
Spencer Ball
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
I believe they only study stars in our galaxy (except Cephid variables), the HST has allowed more precise spectral analysis of fainter stars. The recent discovery of more red dwarfs than thought seems to point some problems with this. IE stars may behave some what differently in elliptical galaxies than in a spiral galaxy, this was explained as the reason for larger number of red dwarfs.
BTW, I was doing some internet searching and found that Dr. Alan Sandage passed away Nov 17th. As many may recall he and Hubble derived the Hubble Constant used to determine the age of the universe.
How can astronomers detect such dim stars in galaxies so far away? Any
red spectrum stars might be supergiants, wouldn't they be? Has anyone measured anything smaller than an entire galaxy that far away?
Spencer Ball Attorney at Law 3690 E. Ft Union Blvd # 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84121 (801) 453-2000 spencer@spencerball.com
This law firm collects debts. This communication may be an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail transmission and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are confidential and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete this message and its attachments from your computer. Thank you.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:33 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
Kim, It appears you have asked the question cosmologists are divided on, and your 1st thought may be correct. IE, only high mass stars made up Pop 3 stars.
from Wiki, on metallicity.
"Current theory is divided on whether the first stars were very massive or not. One theory, which seems to be borne out by computer models of star formation, is that with no heavy elements from the Big Bang, it was easy to form stars with much more total mass than the ones visible today. Typical masses for Population III stars would be expected to be about several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than the current stars. Analysis of data on extremely low-metallicity Population II stars such as HE0107-5240, which are thought to contain the metals produced by Population III stars, suggest that these metal-free stars had masses of 20 to 130 solar masses instead. On the other hand, analysis of globular clusters associated with elliptical galaxies suggests pair-instability supernovae were responsible for their metallic composition. This also explains why there have been no low-mass stars with zero metallicity observed, although models have been constructed for smaller Pop III stars. Clusters containing zero-metallicity red dwarfs or brown dwarfs (possibly created by pair-instability supernovae have been proposed as dark matter candidates, but there is disagreement on this theory"
Yes, that is a good question. Does anyone know if cosmologists have
estimated what the ratio of low- or zero-metal red dwarfs should be? And, can we observe enough of them in near space to have a representative picture of what might have occurred shortly after the big bang? Would the density of the early universe have limited the formation of red dwarfs?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 1:37 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
Good point Eric.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:13 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
Well, the Red Dwarfs observed today do have metals and none have been observed that contain only hydrogen and helium. There should be Red Dwarfs with no metals if some formed during the Big Bang (in theory at least), since the are believed to have a longer life than current estimates of the age of the universe. Would only the massive stars, needed to create the metals, have formed initially?
I guess it is possible metals were created during Big Bang, but I am not a physicist.
Erik, As I understand it, there was plenty of time in the early universe
(800 million years or so) for super massive Population III stars to form, and due to their accelerated evolution they provided the metals found in the red dwarfs and globular clusters observed in the deep field objects. There is no need to invoke a time interval greater than that between the big bang and the formation of the red dwarfs, etc. to account for their advent. I don't understand the assertion that 100 billion years are required for the formation of galactic clusters.
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@thebluezone.net Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 9:47 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Big bang
Kim,
As for Red Dwarfs and Globular Clusters (made largely of red giants), yes, they are about the age of what we consider the age of the universe. The problem is where did the material they formed from come from. There must have been stars before that the material came from, 1st generation stars or Population 3 stars. So by default the universe must be older because our oldest stars formed from older stars still.
At least thats how I understand it, but I would agree Don is more informed about this and I.
Erik
Somehow this thread began as a discussion about space exploration...
Don, I'm sure that I haven't read as much as you or others about cosmology and the big bang theory, but I'm wondering about some of the comments that you made. I truly am not criticizing or mocking - I really do have questions. And I promise not to mention God. Here are my questions, numbered according to your post from yesterday:
1 and 2. I don't believe that an object moving through space is comparable to the expansion of space itself; hence the limitation of the speed of light wouldn't apply. What other laws of physics would have to have been different or not exist? 3. Does it matter whether or not the theory is predictive (unless they really do succeed in creating a singularity at CERN)? Discoveries of things such as dark matter, dark energy, etc. haven't invalidated the theory, but yes, these nasty surprises have certainly given the theorists more to ponder. Perhaps they will eventually have to discard the big bang, but from everything with which I'm familiar I don't see that happening. 4. I know that Wikipedia isn't 100 percent reliable, but under the article "Cosmic microwave background radiation" I read that a 1948 estimate by Gamow and others of the CMBR was 5K, later re-estimated at 28K. The higher estimate was based on someone's mis-estimate of the Hubble constant and was soon abandoned in favor of the original, lower estimate. I also understand that the suggestion that the CMBR is background stellar radiation cannot account for the black body nature of the CMBR. From what I read in Wikipedia, numerous lines of observations and experiment all support the hypothesis that the CMBR is a remnant of the big bang. 5. I wish I could remember where I read about it, but I think this "problem" was put to bed some time ago. Does anyone else have information about this, one way or the other? 6. Again, I'm probably not as knowledgeable, but I've never read anything about observations of red dwarfs, globular clusters, or other objects that indicate greater age than the accepted age of the universe, 13.75+/- billion years, or that galaxy clusters would take 100 billion years to form. What have I missed? 7. Is the Texas A&M paper online, and if so can you share the link? I'm really interested in reading this. 8. I'm not sure what you're saying here relative to Michelson, Morley and Einstein. I admit to not being able to wrap my mind around a lot of scientific thought, especially in relation to cosmology. Can anyone truly imagine what a singularity looks like (or tastes, smells, feels, sounds like) or how the universe as we see it came from such a thing? I have a difficult time imagining a neutron star, or why my son just left for school with a light jacket when the temperature outside is only about 15 degrees. Still, I've not read any credible science that supports a steady state universe or any other alternative to the big bang. A steady state universe, for example, is just as hard for me to fathom as a universe that began as an infinitesimally small point.
Thanks, Don for your willingness to share your opinion, even when you know many of us believe something different.
A general question for everyone: Besides steady state, what alternate theories exist?
Kim
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:28 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
The Big Bang Theory is the most generally accepted theory but it has many problems. Unfortunately consensus science seems to be more important than really questioning the current paradigm.
Significant Problems with the Big Bang are as follows:
1. You have to suppose that the current laws of physics did not exist originally. 2. Inflation dramatically violates the speed of light (see one above). 3. Big Bang Theory is not a predictive theory like Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Astrophysicists continually have to patch it together when such things as acceleration of the universe, dark matter, dark energy and other nasty surprises occur. 4. The original prediction of microwave background radiation by Gamow was 50 deg. Kelvin - 17 times greater than measured. The 3 deg Kelvin microwave background radiation is explained well by Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar and Ratcliffe as background stellar radiation (not remnant big bang radiation). 5. The problem with the proper motion of quasars, some of which show proper motions similar to the Helix Nebula. There are various strained explanations of this phenomenon. 6. The age problem. Red Dwarfs, many globular clusters, large galaxy clusters all appear to be much older than 13 billion years. You have to invent ad hoc assumptions about early clumping etc. in the Big Bang to account for the large galaxy clusters, which under normal gravitation interactions must be at least 100 billion years old. 7. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field shows galaxies from about 13.3 billion years ago that appear very similar to nearby galaxies. The Texas A&M team that studied the Hubble Deep field concluded "After comparing them with the bluest nearby galaxies, the team concluded that, while their galaxies were fairly primitive in composition, they did not have zero metallicity, meaning that these galaxies contain stars not unlike those we see today, even though the Universe was only five percent of its current age of 13.7 billion years. This implies that they are not the first-ever galaxies formed after the Big Bang as other international teams of astronomers analyzing the same data have implied." The Hubble Ultra Deep Field also shows many large spirals and elliptical galaxies which take on the order of 10 billion years to form. Could such galaxies and stars have formed in 500 million years? Considering that large spiral galaxies take 300 million years to rotate also argues against an age of only 500 million years. 8. The idea that the whole universe was created from nothing also appears to be the kind of nonsense results Michelson and Morley got when their experiments along with Einstein overturned classical physics.
As the history of science has shown, each new generation thinks they know it all.
Clear Skies,
Don
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of daniel turner Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:49 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Privatization (Was: SpaceX ?Secret? Payload)
--- On Wed, 12/15/10, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
It does seem the U of U Physics agrees with the
Big Bang Theory, at least thats my memory when we have had some of the Faculty speak. The grand Unified Theory has gained some ground but not enough, resolving those issue seems key to a better understanding of the Universe.
Eric:
It's entirely possible that these faculty people actually know something about the subject matter. They have access to the observational data. They can't all be deluded or lying to advance an agenda. Perhaps the debate is over among the people who know the most about it.
DT
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3319 - Release Date: 12/16/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3321 - Release Date: 12/17/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 1435/3327 - Release Date: 12/20/10
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com