Posted on 01/10/2002 7:18:34 AM PST by JediGirl
WASHINGTON (AP) — An outburst of star formation ended a half billion years of utter darkness following the Big Bang, the theoretical start of the universe, according to a study that challenges old ideas about the birth of the first stars.
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 that burst to life and pierced 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 5 billion years later.
``Star formation took place early and very rapidly,'' Lanzetta said Tuesday at a National Aeronautics and Space Administration news conference. ``Star formation was 10 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. 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 the star-forming activity was.
``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 areas became more dense with elements than others, forming gravitational centers that attracted more and more matter. Eventually, 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 where we can not see at all,'' she said.
———
On the Net:
Hubble images: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2002/02
Also: http://hubble.stsci.edu/go/news
Well, I was trying to avoid getting into a debate over the laws and theories of advanced physics with you guys because you clearly know much more about the subject than I do, therefore I cannot make a substantial argument to defend my point on those levels. I haven't taken the time to study this field, nor do I want to. The whole idea of virtual particles sounds ridiculous to me, but I'm sure you physics/math types have it all figured out (with absolutely zero flaws in your experimental design and calculations, I'm sure). I will keep my intellectual arguments on the biological level and not pretend to know something that I don't.
we can see that virtual electrons and positrons are there, because the vacuum is electrically polarizable. Moreover, it's polarizable in a highly specific way, that has been experimentally confirmed to more than 10 decimal places.
I'm not sure how you could accomplish this to any degree of certainty and avoid experimental error, but I'm sure you could explain it. If you can't explain it using layman's terms (undergraduate level physics terms or concepts), then don't bother. I'll just drop it.
I think some of the complex math and physics concepts that only physics professors understand are just a conspiracy to cover up the insane conclusions you guys come up with. You say "Space is expanding. How do we know? Well, blah, blah, virtual particles, blah, Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, blah, blah, time distortion and black holes, blah, blah, high-intensity quasars and anti-neutrinos, blah, blah, blah. So just trust us, it works!" It's a conspiracy! < /humor >
I'm guessing by your tone that virtual particles constitute a threat to your Weltanschauung.
I'm very secure in my manhood, thank you very much!
First of all, that's not a rule of physics, and second of all, the vacuum isn't "nothing". It's a tremendously complicated thing, actually.
Have you ever taken the time to contemplate your navel? It's a very complicated thing, ya know. =8^)
Yes. I'm sure you've heard the saying that there is enough energy in a teaspoon of vacuum to boil the world's oceans. The energy that refers to is the ground state energy of the vacuum, which is manifest in the form of virtual particles. For quantum mechanical reasons, the energy of the ground state cannot be zero. But therein lies the rub: ground state means that there is no lower energy state for the vacuum to slip into, which is what you'd have to have in order to exploit any of the energy.
If there were such a lower energy state, we'd have a potential problem on our hands. Clearly the vacuum is extremely stable; it doesn't spontaneously release energy. If a lower-energy state exists, then there must be a gigantic potential barrier preventing the vacuum from simply collapsing down into the more energetically favorable state.
Let's suppose that's the case. Now let's suppose that we develop a technology that enables us to punch through the barrier, and create a "bubble" of vacuum that is in the lower-energy state. We can milk some energy out of the bubble, but the surface of the bubble will cover a thin region of space passing from the higher-energy vacuum to the lower-energy vacuum. This region of space is in an extremely high energy state--it goes right through the middle of the potential barrier! So if the bubble is small, the energy we had to put into the surface of the bubble is huge compared to the energy we got out of the middle. The bubble will decay very quickly with no net gain of energy.
Ahhhh....but wait a moment. The energy we get out of the middle of the bubble will increase as the cube of the radius of the bubble, but the energy of the surface will only increase as the square of the radius of the bubble. If we make the bubble big enough, we will get net energy out of it! The size depends only on the energy difference between the vacua, and the height of the potential barrier.
But now we get to the problem I mentioned. A big enough bubble becomes unstable in the other direction. Instead of rapid decay, the bubble grows out of control! The surface rushes outwards at a velocity that rapidly approaches the speed of light, reformatting the entire universe into the new vacuum state and leaving a constant additional energy density in its wake. The surface of the bubble is what is known in physics as a disaster wall.
As ridiculous as it sounds, it can't be ruled out. A calculation of the likelihood of creating a universe-destroying disaster wall was included in the environmental impact assessment for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Doncha know? Nothing exploded, and here we are!
wwJd?
God-Jehovah-Jesus' Creation:
1st Day: "And God said,'Let there be light (Shekinah-Glory of Jesus): and there was light (Shekinah-Glory of Jesus)"
(The Bethlehem 'star-light')
4th Day: And (then) God made two great lights (Sun & Moon)..........and all the rest of the stars too.
See Genesis chapter 1 (one).
'Cool' stuff, or is it 'Hot' stuff?? Never-the-less. GOD said, "It was 'GOOD'"!!!!!!
:-)
Now the interesting thing to me is what is beyond the edge of the universe? No one will ever be able to answer that question since we are inside of the event horizon of the big bang, but if we ever find ANYTHING in our universe that is older then the universe then we will know that the edge of the universe is just a mathmatical concept and not a real edge at all.
I have occasionally read that some astronemer or another claim to have discovered a star older then the universe, I always pay attention to those claims and try to follow up on them. So far, nothing definate.
How very astute of you, I have often thought the same. It seems that in quatom mechanics a partical can not have zero energy. If it's energy goes to zero then it no longer exists, but that is not posible cause it's got mass so instead it kinda drops into a dead zone and magcally reappears (with energy) when a partical is badly needed to explan traces in a high energy crash. All very confusing, but the Phyists like it so what the hell.
Hey now wait a minute! Black holes and quasars are super cool!
I could wax rhapsodic for longer than you'd care to read on this topic. Bear with me, and we'll see how well I can balance brevity and clarity.
Let's suppose you had a capacitor. The simplest capacitor is a pair of conductive plates across which you put a voltage. One plate becomes positively charged, and the other becomes negatively charged. For plates of a given width at a given separation and at a given voltage, you measure a certain electrical charge on each plate.
Next you get a slab of plastic and put it between the plates. Surprisingly, the charge on each plate becomes larger! What is happening is that the molecules in the plastic are being distorted by the electric field. The positive nuclei are pulled towards the negative plate, and the negative electrons are pulled towards the positive plate. This displacement of charge attracts more electrons into the negative plate, and pushes more electrons out of the positive plate.
The surprising thing is that the vacuum behaves the same way. In the space between two conductive plates, virtual particles of every description come in and out of existence. Charge is conserved, of course, so we don't see single electrons coming into existence, for example. We see pairs of electrons and positrons (a positron is an antimatter electron, and carries a positive charge). These pairs appear and disappear too quickly to be seen, but while they are there, they are affected by the electric field just like the molecules in the plastic. The electron tends towards the positive plate, the positron towards the negative. The vacuum is measurably polarizable.
But we can measure this much more accurately still. Suppose I have an electron--a real one, this time. Very close to the electron, the field strength becomes gigantic, and in this tiny region the effect of the virtual particles becomes overwhelming. The positrons are pulled towards the electron, and cancel out some of its charge, while the electrons are pushed away, and make the charge of the electron appear smeared out. If I try to hit this electron with another particle, say a positron, the measured charge of the electron will depend very strongly on the distance of closest approach (which I can calculate directly from the collision energy). If you want to improve the accuracy of the measurement, it's simply a matter of energy and statistics; all you have to do is measure a large number of collisions at a range of energies (the higher, the better).
(Geek alert: I have not described the effect of virtual photons, which is equally important.)
I have made the exact measurement I describe. I can tell you that, in accordance with theory, the effect of the virtual particles approaches infinity as the distance of closest approach approaches zero.
Just so. If it had zero energy, it wouldn't be moving. It would therefore be at a perfectly defined place with a perfectly defined momentum (zero). This would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
If anything moves, everything moves.
Note the last word of your sentence: "created".
This statement means that before the Big Bang, SOMETHING existed (an infinitesimal ball of dirt). The Big Bang theory states "In the beginning, DIRT...", while my theory states "In the beginning, GOD..."
Where did the dirt come from? Where did God come from?
I believe that some questions can never be answered. These two are good examples. We cannot answer these questions with valid science, so it comes down to faith: what belief do you put your faith in?
I choose to put my faith in the belief that gives me a reason for existence, a reason for living, a goal of some sort.
There is a lot of evidence supporting both sides. There is scientific evidence that supports both sides, depending on the beliefs of the scientists performing the experiments. Their natural bias often leads to conclusions which support their theory, although the same evidence could be interpreted in a different (and equally valid) manner to support the other theory. There is no evidence that disproves one theory beyond all doubt, nor do I think there ever will be.
I believe in God, heaven, and hell. If I am wrong, what will happen to me in the end? Not much, methinks. I just die and cease to exist.
But what if I'm right and God DOES exist, and there IS a heaven and a hell? What happens to all those that turn their backs on God and disobey His commandments? I'd tell ya, but I'm sure there are many people on this thread that don't like being told where they may end up. They don't like the fact that maybe someone else has more control over their lives than they do. They are afraid of going to hell, so they deny its existence.
I'm no less of a sinner than many people, but I have something they don't: forgiveness for my sins. All I had to do was admit that God is in control, ask Him to come into my heart, and ask for forgiveness.
I am equally deserving of hell as those who will end up there, but what separates me from them is that I recognize God's existence and His authority over my life, and I try to live according to what He has commanded. < /sermon >
Have a good one, y'all.
I thought that the dielectric constant was determined using a vacuum as a reference (constant of 1, I believe). When you measure the effect of virtual particles, what do you use as a reference? Surely you can't use a vacuum as a reference to measure another vacuum.
Welcome aboard, Capt. "Crunch"....
Both questions ultimately boil down to Heidegger's fundamental question of all philosophy: why does something--anything--exist, and not just nothing? All we can do is follow Rand, and punt: "Existence exists" is an axiom, because it can't be anything else. I don't see how there's any faith involved there; the fact that there is such a thing as existence is self-evident.
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.