Posted on 01/09/2002 5:24:37 AM PST by Darth Reagan
WASHINGTON (AP) - A half billion years of utter blackness following the Big Bang, the theoretical start of the universe, was broken by an explosion of stars bursting into life like a fireworks finale across the heavens, a new theory suggests.
An analysis of very faint galaxies in the deepest view of the universe ever captured by a telescope suggests there was an eruption of stars bursting to life and piercing the blackness very early in the 15-billion year history of the universe.
The study, by Kenneth M. Lanzetta of the State University of New York at Stony Brook challenges the long held belief that star formation started slowly after the Big Bang and didn't peak until some five billion years later.
``Star formation took place early and very rapidly,'' Lanzetta said Tuesday at a NASA (news - web sites) news conference. ``Star formation was ten times higher in the distant early universe than it is today.''
Lanzetta's conclusions are based on an analysis of what is called a deep field study by the Hubble Space Telescope (news - web sites). To capture the faintest and most distant images possible, the Hubble focused on an ordinary bit of sky for more than 14 days, taking a picture of every object within a small, deep slice of the heavens. The resulting images are faint, fuzzy bits of light from galaxies near and far, including some more than 14 billion light years away, said Lanzetta.
The surprise was that the farther back the telescope looked, the greater was the star forming activity.
``Star formation continued to increase to the very earliest point that we could see,'' said Lanzetta. ``We are seeing close to the first burst of star formation.''
Bruce Margon of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore said Lanzetta's conclusions are a ``surprising result'' that will need to be confirmed by other studies.
``This suggests that the great burst of star formation was at the beginning of the universe,'' said Margon, noting that, in effect: ``The finale came first.''
``If this can be verified, it will dramatically change our understanding of the universe,'' said Anne Kinney, director of the astronomy and physics division at NASA.
In his study, Lanzetta examined light captured in the Hubble deep field images using up to 12 different light filters to separate the colors. The intensity of red was used to establish the distance to each point of light. The distances were then used to create a three-dimensional perspective of the 5,000 galaxies in the Hubble picture.
Lanzetta also used images of nearby star fields as a yardstick for stellar density and intensity to conclude that about 90 percent of the light in the very early universe was not detected by the Hubble. When this missing light was factored into the three dimensional perspective, it showed that the peak of star formation came just 500 million years after the Big Bang and has been declining since.
Current star formation, he said, ``is just a trickle'' of that early burst of stellar birth.
Lisa Storrie-Lombardi, a California Institute of Technology astronomer, said that the colors of the galaxies in the Hubble deep field images ``are a very good indication of their distance.''
Current theory suggests that about 15 billion years ago, an infinitely dense single point exploded - the Big Bang - creating space, time, matter and extreme heat. As the universe cooled, light elements, such as hydrogen and helium, formed. Later, some of areas became more dense with elements than others, forming gravitational centers that attracted more and more matter. Eventually, formed celestial bodies became dense enough to start nuclear fires, setting the heavens aglow. These were newborn stars.
Storrie-Lombardi said that current instruments and space telescopes now being planned could eventually, perhaps, see into the Dark Era, the time before there were stars.
``We are getting close to the epoch were we can not see at all,'' she said.
Actually the term "Big Bang" was originated as a derision of the idea of a non steady state universe first coined by Dr. Fred Hoyle who later embraced the theory himself as the evidence mounted against a steady state universe.
That's not fair, you started with a three-dimensional object (not a point) in this balloon analogy and you used an outside source of energy to inflate your imaginary balloon.
Neither is applicable to the single-point theory.
Anyway, if your imaginary balloon keeps expanding, it bursts, and all the tiny pieces fall to the floor.
If it was that easily comprehended it wouldn't be the subject of such great inquiry.
I was trying to give you a three dimensional visualization of a multidimensional expanding space-time. Why objects appear to be moving faster as the distance from us increases.
Yes, so it seems. But I have the most profound difficulties with a universe that has a specific beginning and which will dribble out to virtually nothing (or very thin something, which is as good as nothing). Such a universe is a "one time affair," and that's just not very satisfying (philosophically). A one-time universe means that there was nothing before the universe, and it ends in nothing; however in between these two nothings is our universe, a bright shining instant of something, which ultimately amounts to nothing after all. I don't like it. So you can call me "Captain Crunch" because I want things to start over again. And again.
Unfortunately the data appears to be pointing to this exact scenario.
It's still early days. I hereby issue my ultimatum to the universe: I demand closure!
But nowhere is it written that given enough time, a technology cannot be found to reverse this, no?
I wonder what the extremely bizzare beings of the future would choose -
Devote their energy to trying to keep entropy at bay to sustain themselves, or choose to try to create a Big Crunch - dooming themselves, while taking the gamble that another favorable Big Bang would occur, so that others may experience existence?
If they could pull that many rabbits out of a hat, they should do both, and wait it out in their entropy bubble, while the new universe blossomed around them.
The universe next door.
Umm, because it defies the laws of physics as we know it?
"ps the answer is, you'd like to think there is a God out there to save your sorry ass when you die, and to give you life after death. And your willing to grovel to gain His favor. - Tom"
I already said on this thread that I'm an atheist. Are you drunk?
Ah, the "Sysyphian Universe" hypothesis, where those poor turtles are condemned to bear the Universe on their backs over and over again, for all eternity?
Whilst you may find a Cosmologically flat Universe philosophically objectionable, how to think the turtles feel about your repeating Universe? Doesn't their objection count for something?
;-)
I was responding to your post #32. I did not see any mention of an athiest. If I did I would have changed my comment. I thought you were just looking for a different slant on the universe. You might have added in athiest after post # 32, and I missed it. -Tom
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.