Star Found, from before the Big Bang

New, Old Star

The Star

A star SDSS J102915+172927, has been discovered in the constellation of Leo. Its existence has been confirmed by astrophysicists in Germany, France and Italy.

This star is located near the edge of the Universe and has been estimated to be over 13 billion years old.

The universe itself has only been estimated to be 13.75 billion years old.

This star however has a low mass, below 0.8 solar masses

It has always been thought that low mass stars were only formed by thermonuclear and supernova explosions. Heavy elements formed, cooled creating a gravity that pulled the gasses into them. This process took time and it had always been thought that it would be impossible for this to happen so soon after the big bang.

Theories

This means that the main theory that scientists have about the Big Bang, does not add up.

If science still wants to believe that all creation started with one big bang, then they are going to have to review all their models.

How would this affect our perception of the universe?

Just as our first probes are about to leave our solar system, are we discovering that our concepts of real space are not correct?

Is it possible that they have the age of the star wrong? It is, especially as the age of a star has always been measured by the amount of metal it is thought to contain. But if they got the age of this star wrong then all their estimates for the ages of the stars are wrong, which again messes up their theory.

Cycle Theory
Cycle Theory
Doomsday Predictions
Doomsday Predictions

Cycle Theory

Scientists at Princeton and Cambridge Universities have been working on a theory that the universe is split into “branes”. Every so often these branes collide causing events similar to a big bang. They have called this the “Cycle Theory”

Does the finding of this star, that appears to be too old for the old theory, give credence to the new theory?

With the old theory, scientists say that they could estimate when the universe would end.

The cycle theory suggests that a collision could happen at any time.

Will the discovery of this star lead to an influx of still more doomsday predictions?

More by this Author


Comments 10 comments

Art 4 years ago

The big bang theory is false. It's also a theory that a temple priest came up with, so no surprise there. It's also no surprise that galaxies mimic biotic reproductive systems. Leads one to believe that the universe itself is eternal.


eternalsandwyrm profile image

eternalsandwyrm 4 years ago from Maine

it is possible that this is the first star to form of its type. it could also be when light travel you know 10 billion years maybe it drags out some making this object actually younger then it would appear, we see something similar with radio wave the father out they go the more stretched out they get


arusho profile image

arusho 5 years ago from University Place, Wa.

Great hub. I'm very interested in the universe and how life began and this article gives me a lot of information. Thx.


PenMePretty 5 years ago from Franklin

Interesting. I voted. Thanks for sharing.


rafken profile image

rafken 5 years ago from The worlds my oyster Author

lone77star- As always I appreciate your comments. I am glad that you got the essence of my hub: no matter how much our scientists think they know, they can keep getting blindsided.


lone77star profile image

lone77star 5 years ago from Cebu, Philippines

Rafken, interesting, but your title is misleading. "Before the Big Bang?" It looks like 0.75 billion years after, not before!

Now, bear with me. I might pick on this one a bit, but I love your stuff.

You state, "It has always been thought that low mass stars were only formed by thermonuclear and supernova explosions." This is also misleading. All stars are formed by thermonuclear explosions. That's what distinguishes stars from planets and brown dwarfs. To state that small stars are only formed by thermonuclear explosions implies something special about this relationship that doesn't exist.

The other problem with the sentence involves the cause-and-effect sense you give for supernova explosions and low mass stars. Yes, supernovae are involved in the cycle of metal-rich stellar birth, but, as I understand it, the problem with this star is that the current theory states that small stars cannot form from clouds of nearly pure hydrogen and helium. The more direct and meaningful relationship is between heavily metalized stellar clouds and groups of small stars, of which this small star was not a member.

The remainder of that paragraph (#5) is also troubled. You seem to imply that heavy elements occurred early in the universe, but that has nothing to do with the formation of this star that does not have much in the way of heavy elements. The problem with the star is the lack of heavy elements and the "impossibility" by current models for such a star to have accreted in the first place.

I don't fully understand the mechanics of cloud collapse and stellar accretion, but I've read in one book on astrophysics that part of the scenario involves absorption by various elements in the cloud of radiation as the center of the cloud warms up from the pressurization derived from gravitational collapse. Different elements have different absorption spectra. If you can find out why a "plain vanilla" (hydrogen-helium) cloud would not collapse into a sub-solar mass star, and why a metal-rich cloud would, that would be most interesting.

Other than this, I loved the hub. As always, your article is wonderfully thought-provoking. This merely points out that science has been startled before by discoveries they didn't anticipate. Thanks for continuing to push the envelope.


Lyn.Stewart profile image

Lyn.Stewart 5 years ago from Auckland, New Zealand

Rated up and interesting ...

Sooner or later someone discovers something that turns the scientific world on its head. How amazing that a this star has done that very thing.

The thing about science is that no proven theory can ever be thought of as being set in concrete.


Dohgon 5 years ago

The universe is not the result of a big bang. Pure energy waves "fluxed" and formed carbon matter. Isotopes of carbon ignited to form stars and the matter that was spat out of that process cooled to form planets, asteroids, dust, etc.


suzettenaples profile image

suzettenaples 5 years ago from Taos, NM

As soon as we think we have the Universe figured out, here comes new information. Who knew Pluto would no longer be an official planet? Now it's classified as a dwarf planet. It just goes to show you that knowledge is infinite. Probably everything I learned in school during the 20th century will probably be disproved in the 21st. And, I'm having a difficult time keeping up with computers and technology. At least we'll never get bored at this rate. Great hub! Very interesting and very well written!


Nell Rose profile image

Nell Rose 5 years ago from England

Hi, this just proves that however much truth we have about the Universe, it is just speculation based on Scientific equations, and they of course, can be wrong! Each step is four steps forward and three steps back, even Einstein quoted that 'Atoms are annoying little things, without much use!' I personally think that they Universe didn't actually start with the Big Bang, but comes from a bubble multi-verse, in other words, the singularity of the Black Hole scrunches up all the matter and shoots it through to make another Universe, Scientists are beginning to believe this too, why else would all Galaxy's have a Black Hole at their centre? Great hub, and really interesting, cheers nell rated up!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working