On the trail of the very first (Population III) stars?

[walterpthefirst]

It's still too early to draw any definitive conclusions and further observations need to be made, but this finding, if confirmed, would be fascinating.

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-say-they-have-spotted-the-universes-first-stars-20230130/

 

This is a link to the pre-print science paper in question.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04476

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

It's still too early to draw any definitive conclusions and further observations need to be made, but this finding, if confirmed, would be fascinating.

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-say-they-have-spotted-the-universes-first-stars-20230130/

 

This is a link to the pre-print science paper in question.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04476

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Population III stars have been observed to some extent around the Milky Way and elsewhere. If they are here, they could be anywhere. The question would be to show evidence that these stars dominate galaxies near the supposed beginning of the universe at the greatest distances. This could never happen if the Big Bang model is wrong and the observable universe is far older than what they presently believe. In maybe 3-4 years they will begin to figure it out with the James Webb, but not likely before then IMO.

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/59

[walterpthefirst]

Population III stars have been observed to some extent around the Milky Way and elsewhere.

 

Could you please cite or link to your source for this claim, Pantheory?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Yes, IMO there is no such thing as population III stars formed from primordial gas in the observable universe . I should have said "population III-like" stars.

 

Cosmologists define population III stars as those made up of primordial gas. Many or most astronomers think of population III stars as being made up of hydrogen. and helium, with little else being detectable. In astronomy, stellar metals are defined as all elements heavier than helium – since both hydrogen and some helium are primordial gases according to mainstream theory. Individual stars in, and close to the Milky Way, can be tested via their absorption lines as to their metal content. In galaxies further out, astronomers look to galactic clouds to test for metallicity when individual stars can’t be observed.

 

Although theorists and astronomers believe population III stars can be observed by the James Webb, I believe it will not be possible at those great distances to see individual stars, even though such claims might be made. Instead they will look at what appear to be very large galaxies to see if their light has the absorption profile lines of metals within them. Here are a few links to very distant galaxies that have metals within them, thought to be anomalies.  But this too will be very difficult if the Hubble distance formula is wrong. I believe claims of metal poor galaxies (population III stars) at the greatest distances will be made, but in time others will make claims of metallicity at the greatest distances IMO.

 

There also are a great many links to metal poor stars in clusters near us, some believed to be formed almost entirely of hydrogen gas. The Big Bang model proposes that some extra-galactic brown dwarf stars could essentially be made up of population III-like stars.

 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/820/1/59

 

https://aasnova.org/2021/10/15/have-we-stumbled-upon-the-hiding-place-of-the-earliest-stars-in-the-universe/

 

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/453/3/2771/175099

 

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2009/05/aa11415-08/aa11415-08.html

 

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf  

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363649063_The_Surprising_and_unexpected_discoveries_the_James_Webb_Space_Telescope_will_likely_make_based_upon_our_research

 

[walterpthefirst]

Yes, it does indeed seem as if we are talking about two different things, Pantheory.

 

 

True Population III stars, as defined here... 

 

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III#:~:text=Population III (Pop III) stars are composed entirely,pristine material left over from the Big Bang.

 

The currently favoured explanation for the lack of observed Pop III stars, is that the Pop III generation of stars were all high mass stars, with masses ranging from 60 to 300 times that of the Sun. In other words, no low mass Pop III stars were ever formed. This is supported by recent theoretical models which show that primordial stars possessed much higher masses than the stars we see in the Universe today. If this bias in the mass distribution of primordial stars is the case, then all Pop III stars would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago and would now be present only as remnants.

 

...are not Pop III-like stars with low metallicity and small masses, that are found in the local universe.

 

Two different things.

 

 

The paper I originally cited made it clear that they were only discussing massive True Pop III stars (as per the Swinburne description) in the galaxy RXJ2129-z8HeII.  That's because Wang et al make their comments in the context of reionization, a process that does not occur in the local universe.

 

Cosmic hydrogen reionization and cosmic production of first metals are major phase transitions of the Universe occurring during the first billion years after the Big Bang, but still poorly explored observationally.

 

 

So, I thank you for your input, but we are definitely talking about two different things here.  Both your comments and your citations are not relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the star type mentioned in both the quantamagazine article and the arxiv pre-print paper.  Specifically, True Pop III stars and not Pop III-like stars.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

54 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Yes, it does indeed seem as if we are talking about two different things, Pantheory.

 

 

True Population III stars, as defined here... 

 

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Population+III#:~:text=Population III (Pop III) stars are composed entirely,pristine material left over from the Big Bang.

 

The currently favoured explanation for the lack of observed Pop III stars, is that the Pop III generation of stars were all high mass stars, with masses ranging from 60 to 300 times that of the Sun. In other words, no low mass Pop III stars were ever formed. This is supported by recent theoretical models which show that primordial stars possessed much higher masses than the stars we see in the Universe today. If this bias in the mass distribution of primordial stars is the case, then all Pop III stars would have exhausted their fuel supplies long ago and would now be present only as remnants.

 

...are not Pop III-like stars with low metallicity and small masses, that are found in the local universe.

 

Two different things.

 

 

The paper I originally cited made it clear that they were only discussing massive True Pop III stars (as per the Swinburne description) in the galaxy RXJ2129-z8HeII.  That's because Wang et al make their comments in the context of reionization, a process that does not occur in the local universe.

 

Cosmic hydrogen reionization and cosmic production of first metals are major phase transitions of the Universe occurring during the first billion years after the Big Bang, but still poorly explored observationally.

 

 

So, I thank you for your input, but we are definitely talking about two different things here.  Both your comments and your citations are not relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the star type mentioned in both the quantamagazine article and the arxiv pre-print paper.  Specifically, True Pop III stars and not Pop III-like stars.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I think the decisive wordings here are: "The currently favored explanation for the lack of observed Pop III stars, is that the Pop III generation of stars were all high mass stars, with masses ranging from 60 to 300 times that of the Sun."

 

Yes, now that you mention it, I  heard that explanation before. So if they found a bunch of such stars in the most distant universe then it would be perceived as good evidence for the BB model -- since such a pristine grouping has never been found anywhere else.

 

Here's another claim of discovery. Let's see if such claims hold up in time, or if other explanations prevails.

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-say-they-have-spotted-the-universes-first-stars-20230130/

[walterpthefirst]

19 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Yeah, I think the decisive wordings here are: "The currently favored explanation for the lack of observed Pop III stars, is that the Pop III generation of stars were all high mass stars, with masses ranging from 60 to 300 times that of the Sun."

 

Yes, now that you mention it, I  heard that explanation before. So if they found a bunch of such stars in the most distant universe then it would be perceived as good evidence for the BB model -- since such a pristine grouping has never been found anywhere else.

 

Here's another claim of discovery. Let's see if such claims hold up in time, or if other explanations prevails.

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-say-they-have-spotted-the-universes-first-stars-20230130/

 

Yes, the jury's still out and further observations and data are needed.

 

A point of order though, Pantheory.

 

Your link to quantamagazine.org isn't another claim.

 

It's the original claim in the popular press, the one I first cited in the opening message of this thread.

 

Within this popular press article is a link to the original science paper (Wang et al) from the arxiv pre-print server.

 

Which I also cited in my opening message.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

38 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, the jury's still out and further observations and data are needed.

 

A point of order though, Pantheory.

 

Your link to quantamagazine.org isn't another claim.

 

It's the original claim in the popular press, the one I first cited in the opening message of this thread.

 

Within this popular press article is a link to the original science paper (Wang et al) from the arxiv pre-print server.

 

Which I also cited in my opening message.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

OK

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Hey Walt, if we are made from the dust of dead stars, does that make us a constellation prize?

[walterpthefirst]

20 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Hey Walt, if we are made from the dust of dead stars, does that make us a constellation prize?

 

Aggh!   

 

I hope not, Prof!  

 

 

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls086288574/

 

 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Hey Walt, if we are made from the dust of dead stars, does that make us a constellation prize?

 

Yeah, something like that, but I think God won the Constellation Prize for his creation of the beaver from thin air, and I think Evolution won the Grand Prize for the creation of mankind from stardust.