Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: 13 billion year old GRB

  1. #1 13 billion year old GRB 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Swift satellite has imaged the oldest object in the universe:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sw...ic_record.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    35
    is it neigh possible this is the big bang itself?


    I had a simple dream: a dream to kill all humans, and this is how you repay me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Not the big bang itself, because to see that you'd have to be able to peek past the surface of last scattering (ie: the cosmic background radiation). Or in other words: the universe was opaque to light for years after the big bang.
    "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    It is believed that these are the supernova outbursts of very massive - maybe even primordial - stars that collapse into a Black Hole at the end of their lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: 13 billion year old GRB 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Swift satellite has imaged the oldest object in the universe:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sw...ic_record.html

    Not quite as old as this star a mere 7,500 light years away in our own galaxy.


    The star's age, as measured by ESO's Very Large Telescope, is 13.2 billion years.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: 13 billion year old GRB 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch2008
    Swift satellite has imaged the oldest object in the universe:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sw...ic_record.html

    Not quite as old as this star a mere 7,500 light years away in our own galaxy.


    The star's age, as measured by ESO's Very Large Telescope, is 13.2 billion years.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901
    Yes, with a considerable error margin of at least 0.7 billion years.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703414

    But also the estimate of the redshift of the gamma ray burst has large error bars. Most people talk about a redshift of "around 8" The original research note of the distance estimate measurement quotes . And how much that is wrt distance and age depends on the cosmological model. For a standard model, this calculates to a lookback time of billion years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    29
    Not the big bang itself, because to see that you'd have to be able to peek past the surface of last scattering (ie: the cosmic background radiation). Or in other words: the universe was opaque to light for years after the big bang.
    Like to add on. The universe was opaque for its first three hundred thousand years until it experienced an decoupling process that finally permitted light to pass through.
    Science is a mountain of theories based on a molehill of facts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Gamma ray burst. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Just finished looking at the photo, of the GRB, from the "Astronomy Picture of the Day" website dated April 29 2009.
    The information given states that the GRB took place around 13 billion years ago. I do not know the answer to what must be a basic question. The universe must have been much smaller, in volume at that time, around 700 million years after the BB.
    Clearly this means, given the expansion of the universe, that the light from the GRB has taken 13 billion years to "catch up " on us, or have I got that wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Moderator's remark:
    I have merged the two threads on the GRB. The second thread starts here.



    There is already a thread on that GRB here:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/13-bi...GRB-18224t.php

    But you are right. Since the universe was "smaller" at that time, the spatial distance between its location and the point of space at that time that we occupy now can be neglected. So, the age estimate tells us that the radiation we detect from the GRB took 13 billion years to reach us. The expansion of the universe also shifted the radiation to longer wavelengths. With a measured redshift of 8, the wavelength we measure now is 9 times higher than when it was emitted.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Haliday and Dish :

    If that is supposed to have caused the BB expasion of space, then it would have had a redshift of 1000.
    So this is another problem for the BBT.

    Which red shift are we to use? The CMBR or the Einstein formula RS?

    Incidentally, I provided an article on the source of the GRB's and that source is the neutron star decays'.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    If that is supposed to have caused the BB expasion of space, then it would have had a redshift of 1000.
    So this is another problem for the BBT.

    Which red shift are we to use? The CMBR or the Einstein formula RS?
    Huh? None has claimed any nonsense like this. Of course, a GRB did not cause the expansion of space. GRBs are thought to be some kind of supernovae of the earliest stars. Nothing can be observed that is beyond the background radiation, because the universe was optically thick at that time.

    As to the redshift, it the measured redshift. Look at the formula: it tells you by how much a measured wavelength was shifted since its emission. It is a definition.

    Please stop hijacking threads with your views. If you want to discuss alternative theories, you are welcome to do this in dedicated threads or in the "New Hypotheses" section of this forum. Please, don't become another William McCormick!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    959
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Moderator's remark:
    I have merged the two threads on the GRB. The second thread starts here.



    There is already a thread on that GRB here:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/13-bi...GRB-18224t.php

    But you are right. Since the universe was "smaller" at that time, the spatial distance between its location and the point of space at that time that we occupy now can be neglected. So, the age estimate tells us that the radiation we detect from the GRB took 13 billion years to reach us. The expansion of the universe also shifted the radiation to longer wavelengths. With a measured redshift of 8, the wavelength we measure now is 9 times higher than when it was emitted.

    I am not sure if I am expressing this question correctly, but what exactly does this tell us about the "speed" of the expansion of the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    GRB's are usually believed to be very distant but like some quasars, it could just be a wrong measurement because their SMBH's contribute with gravitational redshift so making it look like it has a very high recessional redshift. If GRB's were found to be closer, they would not be such incredibly violent events as is now believed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Wow,


    Although it's theoretically impossible for us to ever see the big bang, or much earlier than OP's explosion, for us to see the big bang we would have had to be traveling above light speed away from the point of origin for at least a milisecond
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    for us to see the big bang we would have had to be traveling above light speed away from the point of origin for at least a milisecond
    There is no point of origin. The "origin" is everywhere in a big bang universe.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    35
    holy we found our god? that created us that oldest object
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: 13 billion year old GRB 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Yes, with a considerable error margin of at least 0.7 billion years.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703414

    As the article says, the weighted average age comes out to 13.2 billion years old, so maybe even older?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Cytosine12
    Not the big bang itself, because to see that you'd have to be able to peek past the surface of last scattering (ie: the cosmic background radiation). Or in other words: the universe was opaque to light for years after the big bang.
    Like to add on. The universe was opaque for its first three hundred thousand years until it experienced an decoupling process that finally permitted light to pass through.

    Decoupling at about 3,000.C yet when we look at the CMB at that time, it is -271.C. Strange!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The expansion of the universe also shifted the radiation to longer wavelengths. With a measured redshift of 8, the wavelength we measure now is 9 times higher than when it was emitted.

    Light travels at 186,282 mps (for convenience sake, we'll say exactly at that speed). If in the space of a second, the distance of 186,282 miles expands by a nanometer, then light still travels at exactly 186,282 miles and not a nanometer further. Expansion just means that it takes light longer to reach Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Cytosine12
    Not the big bang itself, because to see that you'd have to be able to peek past the surface of last scattering (ie: the cosmic background radiation). Or in other words: the universe was opaque to light for years after the big bang.
    Like to add on. The universe was opaque for its first three hundred thousand years until it experienced an decoupling process that finally permitted light to pass through.

    Decoupling at about 3,000.C yet when we look at the CMB at that time, it is -271.C. Strange!
    Lets say you're looking back through the universe to a redshift of z=1100. This is when the scale factor was 1100 times smaller than it is today. At that time decoupling was taking place and the temp was about 3000K. At this temperature the universe would have the color of your standard incandescent light bulb, somewhere in the yellows, there are stars that are this color. So everywhere you look at the sky it would look like the surface of a star.

    Of course this is wrong because the wavelength is being stretched by a factor of 1100. Or rather,
    wavelength_observed = wavelength_emitted(1+z)
    for yellow, lets say 6x10^-7 m,
    wavelength_observed = 6x10^-7(1101) = 6.6 mm (microwaves)
    That a pretty crude estimate, because I think it actually peaks around 2mm, but I hope that helps.

    Oh... I guess your post was more about the temperature. So here you go.
    3000K/1100 = 2.727K
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The expansion of the universe also shifted the radiation to longer wavelengths. With a measured redshift of 8, the wavelength we measure now is 9 times higher than when it was emitted.

    Light travels at 186,282 mps (for convenience sake, we'll say exactly at that speed). If in the space of a second, the distance of 186,282 miles expands by a nanometer, then light still travels at exactly 186,282 miles and not a nanometer further. Expansion just means that it takes light longer to reach Earth.
    It's not just the proper distance between objects that's expanding, it's space itself. You're right about c not changing, although I'm not sure what that has to do with changing wavelenths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Feifer. "The CMB is 2.7K" This does not mean that the CMB photons are redshifted so we see photons of 3,000.C as being just 2.7K. No astronomer talks of stars or clusters 13 billion light years away as having temperatures of just 2.7K so being as cold as the medium around them. Allowances are made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Feifer
    It's not just the proper distance between objects that's expanding, it's space itself. You're right about c not changing, although I'm not sure what that has to do with changing wavelenths.

    We are told that space is alive with virtual particles, so effectively a material rather than the nothing I claim it is. But then you have something that has expanded from quantum size to over a hundred billion light years across without changing in any way, that is nonsense.

    Space can only "expand" as it is no more than the distances between what occupies an area we call "space".

    If light is not stretched, then photons do not change, so do not redshift according to recessional velocities we can measure. If an expansion of maybe 15 mps over a million light years stretches photons, imagine what entering the gravity well of a 1G planet would do? It would virtually rip them apart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Feifer. "The CMB is 2.7K" This does not mean that the CMB photons are redshifted so we see photons of 3,000.C as being just 2.7K. No astronomer talks of stars or clusters 13 billion light years away as having temperatures of just 2.7K so being as cold as the medium around them. Allowances are made.
    Why should stars which formed 400 million years after the last scattering (CMB) have the same temperature as the space around it? These are two different epoch we're talking about. When we look at the CMB, we're looking back to when there were no stars, just a hot soup of light elements. Small perturbations in the soup allowed gravity to run away with them and condense them into stars. This took a long time to happen, all the while the universe was cooling down. So the universe was cooler on average as well as having dense balls of nuclear fusion (hot) and sparse regions of space with not much in them (cold). No astronomer would talk about them having the same temperature, because it's ridiculous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    If light is not stretched, then photons do not change, so do not redshift according to recessional velocities we can measure. If an expansion of maybe 15 mps over a million light years stretches photons, imagine what entering the gravity well of a 1G planet would do? It would virtually rip them apart.
    Could you "expand" (pun intended) on this a little bit? I'm having trouble following you. Are you saying the photons would be ripped apart if they came to earth in an expanding universe? I'm hoping that you have some prior knowledge of the strange properties of light such as being both a particle and a wave. EM waves can be stretched. How exactly do you "break" a photon?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •