• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

"Strange" Methuselah Star Looks Older Than the Universe

Airbus Jr

Banned
Baffling mystery: Star that’s older than the universe

AUGUST 7, 2019 7:05AM


Dubbed the “Methuselah star”, HD 140283 is about 200 light-years away from Earth. It’s one of the oldest stars known.


Astronomers are stumped over a star that appears to be older than the universe.
So how is that possible? That’s the question that an international conference in California attempted to answer.

But instead of solving the mystery, theorists are now questioning whether there is something wrong with the current scientific model of the universe — based on Einstein’s famous theories.

The best estimates put the universe’s age at about 13.8 billion years. But the star, HD 140283, appears to be 14.5 billion years old — a difference of 0.7 billion years.

“It’s a riddle of cosmic proportions: How can the universe contain stars older than itself?” physicist Robert Matthews wrote for The National.

“That’s the conundrum now facing astronomers trying to establish the age of the universe — and its resolution could spark a scientific revolution.”


“Astronomers now know it contains very little iron — which means it must have been formed before this element became common in the universe,” Dr Matthew wrote.


“And that implies HD 140283 must be almost as old as the universe itself.”

So what should we make of the discrepancy?
The exact age of the universe is imprecise. Scientists say it could be 800 million years younger or older.

images


According to Dr Matthews, new research into gravitational waves could also resolve the paradox.

Einstein’s famous theory of gravity is also in the spotlight.

His general theory of relativity, one of the towering achievements of 20th-century physics, is one of the most successful theories devised.

It’s also been repeatedly backed by observational evidence.

But Dr Matthews said applying the theory to the whole universe had led to surprising results.

“In the meantime, theorists have been busy dreaming up new physics that might solve the problem,” he wrote.
 
Last edited:
Maybe that star is the gaping anus of the celestial bean that created the universe, between you, me, the tree the rock. Everywhere. Yes.

Goober goober
 
The best estimates put the universe’s age at about 13.8 billion years. But the star, HD 140283, appears to be 14.5 billion years old — a difference of 0.7 billion years.

So what should we make of the discrepancy?
The exact age of the universe is imprecise. Scientists say it could be 800 million years younger or older.

. . .

0.7 billion years is 700 million years. Literally in the margin of error the article cites.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
It's just your typical sensationalized, bullshit-ridden science reporting.

NASA from 2013:


A team of astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has taken an important step closer to finding the birth certificate of a star that’s been around for a very long time.

"We have found that this is the oldest known star with a well-determined age," said Howard Bond of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pa., and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Md.

The star could be as old as 14.5 billion years (plus or minus 0.8 billion years), which at first glance would make it older than the universe's calculated age of about 13.8 billion years, an obvious dilemma.

But earlier estimates from observations dating back to 2000 placed the star as old as 16 billion years. And this age range presented a potential dilemma for cosmologists. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance."

The new Hubble age estimates reduce the range of measurement uncertainty, so that the star's age overlaps with the universe's age — as independently determined by the rate of expansion of space, an analysis of the microwave background from the big bang, and measurements of radioactive decay.


This "Methuselah star," cataloged as HD 140283, has been known about for more than a century because of its fast motion across the sky. The high rate of motion is evidence that the star is simply a visitor to our stellar neighborhood. Its orbit carries it down through the plane of our galaxy from the ancient halo of stars that encircle the Milky Way, and will eventually slingshot back to the galactic halo.

This conclusion was bolstered by the 1950s astronomers who were able to measure a deficiency of heavier elements in the star as compared to other stars in our galactic neighborhood. The halo stars are among the first inhabitants of our galaxy and collectively represent an older population from the stars, like our sun, that formed later in the disk. This means that the star formed at a very early time before the universe was largely "polluted" with heavier elements forged inside stars through nucleosynthesis. (The Methuselah star has an anemic 1/250th as much of the heavy element content of our sun and other stars in our solar neighborhood.)

The star, which is at the very first stages of expanding into a red giant, can be seen with binoculars as a 7th-magnitude object in the constellation Libra.

Hubble's observational prowess was used to refine the distance to the star, which comes out to be 190.1 light-years. Bond and his team performed this measurement by using trigonometric parallax, where an apparent shift in the position of a star is caused by a change in the observer's position. The results are published in the February 13 issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The parallax of nearby stars can be measured by observing them from opposite points in Earth's orbit around the sun. The star's true distance from Earth can then be precisely calculated through straightforward triangulation.

Once the true distance is known, an exact value for the star's intrinsic brightness can be calculated. Knowing a star's intrinsic brightness is a fundamental prerequisite to estimating its age.

Before the Hubble observation, the European Space Agency's Hipparcos satellite made a precise measurement of the star's parallax, but with an age measurement uncertainty of 2 billion years. One of Hubble's three Fine Guidance Sensors measured the position of the Methuselah star. It turns out that the star's parallax came out to be virtually identical to the Hipparcos measurements. But Hubble's precision is five times better that than of Hipparcos. Bond's team managed to shrink the uncertainty so that the age estimate was five times more precise.

With a better handle on the star's brightness Bond's team refined the star's age by applying contemporary theories about the star's burn rate, chemical abundances, and internal structure. New ideas are that leftover helium diffuses deeper into the core and so the star has less hydrogen to burn via nuclear fusion. This means it uses fuel faster and that correspondingly lowers the age.

Also, the star has a higher than predicted oxygen-to-iron ratio, and this too lowers the age. Bond thinks that further oxygen measurement could reduce the star's age even more, because the star would have formed at a slightly later time when the universe was richer in oxygen abundance. Lowering the upper age limit would make the star unequivocally younger than the universe.

"Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."

This Methuselah star has seen many changes over its long life. It was likely born in a primeval dwarf galaxy. The dwarf galaxy eventually was gravitationally shredded and sucked in by the emerging Milky Way over 12 billion years ago.

The star retains its elongated orbit from that cannibalism event. Therefore, it's just passing through the solar neighborhood at a rocket-like speed of 800,000 miles per hour. It takes just 1,500 years to traverse a piece of sky with the angular width of the full Moon. The star's proper motion angular rate is so fast (0.13 milliarcseconds an hour) that Hubble could actually photograph its movement in literally a few hours.

The Hubble Space Telescope is a project of international cooperation between NASA and the European Space Agency. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the telescope. The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, Md., conducts Hubble science operations. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., in Washington.

14.5 billion years, +/- 0.8 billion years. It's within margin of error.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Good to see astronomers spend their time on stars 200 light years away with +/- creation margins of almost 1,000,000,000 years.

Astounding value to society.
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
What a strange subject to be cynical about.

Seriously. "Good to see you idiots wasting time looking at the fireflies that got stuck in the sky, lol like that'll ever be useful in navigating the 2D square we so clearly live on..."

And seriously Airbus Jr Airbus Jr these tabloid science articles you keep posting are retarded.
 

Airbus Jr

Banned
Seriously. "Good to see you idiots wasting time looking at the fireflies that got stuck in the sky, lol like that'll ever be useful in navigating the 2D square we so clearly live on..."

And seriously Airbus Jr Airbus Jr these tabloid science articles you keep posting are retarded.

Theres far more retarded thread in this page

such people announcing their self banned, people posting asses picture, how to trim their bum hair, etc

Dont get too sensitive around here bud
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
Theres far more retarded thread in this page

such people announcing their self banned, people posting asses picture, how to trim their bum hair, etc

Dont get too sensitive around here bud

"Hey, maybe don't spit your gum out on the floor?"

"Well I read a guy took a shit in a urinal once."

...in general, the mindset of "well other people do worse than this..." isn't a great way to decide whether or not you should do something. And I find a discussion about ass hair trimming to be less off-putting than sensationalist mis/disinformative science reporting.
 

Airbus Jr

Banned
"Hey, maybe don't spit your gum out on the floor?"

"Well I read a guy took a shit in a urinal once."

...in general, the mindset of "well other people do worse than this..." isn't a great way to decide whether or not you should do something. And I find a discussion about ass hair trimming to be less off-putting than sensationalist mis/disinformative science reporting.

Feel free to visit any thread you buddy

I didnt do anything sensationalist here

Every word i put is exactly how it is from the main source

just putting the news as it is
 
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
Feel free to visit any thread you buddy

I didnt do anything sensationalist here

Every word i put is exactly how it is from the main source

just putting the news as it is

Posting sensationalist tripe is spreading sensationalist tripe. The failure I'm calling you out for is failing to discern what actual "news" is. Posting straight from the source is just posting garbage if the source is garbage. Get better sources and post actual news.

I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you can see people in this thread explaining why this article is nonsense. If you took the time to think about this before posting, you'd have saved a lot of people the wasted time of disproving this BS. The ratio between the effort it takes to cut and paste nonsense vs how much effort it takes to explain why it's BS to begin with is absurdly skewed. That's why I'm telling you to chill on the nonsense articles. There's a large gap between a light-hearted discussion about asshole grooming and posting shit that seems to call into question everything we know about the universe because they failed to account for something absurdly basic like the margin of error in the measurement.
 

Airbus Jr

Banned
Posting sensationalist tripe is spreading sensationalist tripe. The failure I'm calling you out for is failing to discern what actual "news" is. Posting straight from the source is just posting garbage if the source is garbage. Get better sources and post actual news.

I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you can see people in this thread explaining why this article is nonsense. If you took the time to think about this before posting, you'd have saved a lot of people the wasted time of disproving this BS. The ratio between the effort it takes to cut and paste nonsense vs how much effort it takes to explain why it's BS to begin with is absurdly skewed. That's why I'm telling you to chill on the nonsense articles. There's a large gap between a light-hearted discussion about asshole grooming and posting shit that seems to call into question everything we know about the universe because they failed to account for something absurdly basic like the margin of error in the measurement.

Hows is this clasified as garbage?

So youre telling us youre the real expert now?

The source is from real astronomers doing their own observation

I supposed you know better then them regarding this subject?

This feels like some random street guy trying lecture someone like Reed Richards or Tony Stark trying to teach them quantum physics
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
When you can be off by 700 million years and still be right... science!

Have you ever built anything before?

Hows this is clasified garbage?

So youre telling us youre the real expert now?

The source is from real astronomers from their own observation

I supposed you know better then them regarding this subject?

The article you're referencing isn't written by astronomers. It's attributed to "staff writers" at that website. See Evilore's post on why their interpretation of the data is garbage. It really shouldn't take more than a minute to understand why this is garbage reporting. Your rule of thumb should be that sensationalist-sounding articles are garbage takes on what the data actually show, because most reporters don't know shit about science.

And yes, I apparently do know better than the people that wrote this article, because they're not the astronomers reporting the data. If they were, the headline would be quite boring in comparison.

This feels like some random street guy trying lecture someone like Reed Richards or Tony Stark trying to teach them quantum physics

lol the reporters literally missed that this was within the margin of error and wrote a whole article about this amazing anomaly. A margin of error is about as basic as it gets bud. You don't need to be a quantum physicist to understand what a margin of error is and why it makes this non-news.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Airbus Jr

Banned
Have you ever built anything before?



The article you're referencing isn't written by astronomers. It's attributed to "staff writers" at that website. See Evilore's post on why their interpretation of the data is garbage. It really shouldn't take more than a minute to understand why this is garbage reporting. Your rule of thumb should be that sensationalist-sounding articles are garbage takes on what the data actually show, because most reporters don't know shit about science.

And yes, I apparently do know better than the people that wrote this article, because they're not the astronomers reporting the data. If they were, the headline would be quite boring in comparison.



lol the reporters literally missed that this was within the margin of error and wrote a whole article about this amazing anomaly. A margin of error is about as basic as it gets bud. You don't need to be a quantum physicist to understand what a margin of error is and why it makes this non-news.

The news report telling it for what it is exactly like what the astronomers said

The level of trigerism here is astounding
 

Dontero

Banned
Good to see astronomers spend their time on stars 200 light years away with +/- creation margins of almost 1,000,000,000 years.

Astounding value to society.

Actually there is plenty of value because astronomy is best way to confirm or deny theories.
Just like Einstain theory wasn't proven until astronomers measured space warp around the sun when eclipse was happening and they proved that they could see stars BEHIND the sun due to space warp due to gravitational lensing effect.

So in this case if they prove star is actually older than universe it means something in theory is wrong which then leads to new discoveries like that time when black body radiation mess lead to quantum theory. Some dude was measuring amount of energy in light and noticed that by physics at the time it should have infinite energy which was clearly wrong and following crumb trail quantum theory happened.

If someone will find out new theory of everything that combines QT and GR then it will have to be both compatibile with astronomers findings and nuclear physists findings on small scale.

If by chance astronomers will find star that doesn't fit into theory, that theory will be dead or it will require further tuning etc.

What is more thanks to astronomers we know that for 100% out model is wrong. They discovered due to gravitational lensing existence of Dark Matter which doesn't fit into any of our theories.

Aka we have evidence and we don't have theory.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 1159

Unconfirmed Member
The news report telling it for what it is exactly like what the astronomers said

The level of trigerism here is astounding

If you can't tell the difference between the report you posted and what Evilore posted I don't even know what to tell you man. It's incredibly basic stuff to say there's a margin of error to a measurement, that the apparent anomalous reading is within that margin of error, and that the conclusions being drawn by your article are completely unfounded given they're based on a misinterpretation of the measurements. Again, I'm not claiming to be a astrophysicist, but I do understand all of the above, and the writers of the article apparently do not....either that or they don't care and are misrepresenting the facts for a flashy headline. It's garbage.
 

Chittagong

Gold Member
With dark matter and now apparently stars being older than the universe, it would seem that the universe is not particularly important in the greater scheme of things
 

Doom85

Member
"Before there was time, before there was anything...there was nothing. And before there was nothing...there were Monsters..." - The Lich (Adventure Time)
 
Top Bottom