Mega-star explosion most distant object ever seen

Yahoo! News ^ | Oct 28, 2009 | Yahoo

[GL of Sector 2814]

PARIS (AFP) – It took 13 billion years to reach Earth, but astronomers have seen the light of an exploding mega-star that is the most distant object ever detected, two studies published Thursday reported.

The stunning gamma-ray burst (GRB) was observed by two teams of researchers in April, and opens a window onto a poorly known period when the Universe was in its infancy.

[massgopguy]

I wonder how its third planet handled the Global Warming?

[ClearCase_guy]

IIRC, current theory is that the universe is a little more than 13 billion years old.
IIRC, stars become supernova when they exhaust their supply of hydrogen.

How long does it take for a Megastar to exhaust its supply of hydrogen?
Is it surprising that this happened 13 billion years ago?

[GL of Sector 2814]

Hypergiant stars only have a lifetime of a few million years, so it’s not surprising that some were exploding 13 billion years ago.

[C19fan]

Megastars burn through their fuel at a very rapid rate. For a Blue Giant star you are talking about only a few million years before it supernovas.

[ClearCase_guy]

Thanks for the info.

Can you tell me how long it takes to form a mega-star? I believe these can be about 20 times the mass of our sun. I'm thinking that gathering much a vast quantity of material would take a while -- but maybe it all comes together in just a few million years? And then burns up in a few million years? Are these massive hyperstars just little blinks in the age of the universe?

[Claud]

The discovery is especially exciting for scientists because the explosion occurred during the so-called "cosmic dark ages", which started a mere 400,000 years after the Big Bang set the Universe in motion some 13.7 billion years ago. During this period, free electrons and protons combined to form neutral atoms with the same number of positive and negative charges, resulting in an opaque -- or "dark" -- universe. Not until 800 to 900 million years after the Big Bang were atoms and molecules "re-ionised", or electrically charged, resulting in the relatively transluscent inter-galactic medium we see today.

Thus evening came, and morning followed, the first day.

[C19fan]

From what I understand, just an amateur, these giant stars tend to form in denser dust clouds. I do not know the time it takes to form compared to out ordinary Sun but given the higher density of the dust gravity takes over and I do not believe one is talking about a big difference but as I said this is pure conjecture on my part.

[massmike]

save

[C19fan]

Found this on wikipedia:

In high mass stars, the length of the star formation process is comparable to the other timescales of their evolution, much shorter, and the process is not so well defined.

For stars with masses higher than about 8 solar masses, however, the mechanism of star formation is not well understood.

[Young Werther]

WOW!

[ClearCase_guy]

Thanks!

[17th Miss Regt]

You are correct. Also note that there are practical upper limits to the masses of stars. A star with too much material in it may never become stable. The effect of convection will be so great that a fairly fixed surface may not be able to form. Look up Eta Carinae for an example.

[JRios1968]

Has anyone stopped to think maybe we're getting a first-hand look at

[Skooz]

BFL

[dragnet2]

Megastars burn through their fuel at a very rapid rate. For a Blue Giant star you are talking about only a few million years before it supernovas.

Speaking of supernova, I shot this supernova remnant last week. It was a series of 16x150 second exposures, calibrated, aligned and stacked.

This supernova exploded about 7000 years ago, and is about 2,000 light-years distance from earth.

Veil Nebula NGC 6992

[C19fan]

That is so cool ad beautiful. Was that with amateur equipment?

[dragnet2]

You bet. Using a Canon, 40D shooting raw, with a 9 year old scope, from my small, backyard observatory.

[GL of Sector 2814]

I remember reading astronomy magazines in the 1970s which often included amateur photos. The amateur photos I see today are far more impressive! I can only assume it’s the equipment.

[dragnet2]

The amateur photos I see today are far more impressive! I can only assume it’s the equipment.

Well I take credit for building the mount the scope sits on, staying up all night, adjusting the tracking for the scope to be near perfect or close, fighting for critical focus, and learning imaging techniques in regards to obtaining the raws, darks, and flat images, and then processing the data once the images are obtained...lol

But other than that, your absolutely correct.

The new digital cameras...DSLR and CCD cameras are fabulous for astronomical imaging, dramatically cutting down on tracking times, exposures times etc....But then again it opens up a entire set of new factors, like techniques in processing the images and data, which is an extensive complex combination of science and art...I have much to learn here...lol...

The processing side of it is like the new photo lab or modern "dark room" so to speak, which I really enjoy.

All the images I take, I will never over-process, and what you see in the image, is basically what the telescope saw...All I do is attempt to bring out, or squeeze out the existing data in the image. I really enjoy the image processing part, but I need to add, there are a lot of people out there that do much better work than I do.