• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Dust From The Dawn of Time

D

dot23

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
1,097
Dust from dawn of time

according to this article suns had been created, burnt out and dipersed within a billion years of the universe's creation. Seeing as our sun is meant to be (correct me if I'm wrong) 4.5 billion years old and has a long time to go until it burns up, where does this fit in with existing theory? Were stars completely different in the early stages of the universe, was time? Answers on a postcard please...
 
erm... they were very close together and so burnt out faster?

Niles "is from Lambeth and knows Nothing" Calder
 
I'm no expert ( :D ) but believe it's to do with the size of the star, and how quickly it exhausts its fuel - bigger stars burn hotter and faster, ISTR.

Rynner, HELP!!!! :(
 
We'll need rynner on this one, but I think you'll find that the !st generation stars are supposed to be entirely Hydrogen and also big because of this. Reactions were fast and hot because there were no impurities to slow the reaction down.

I can't recall exactly but i think we are on generation 4
 
I have been summoned - Lo! I arrive!

Now, what's all the fuss about? Oh, is that all, I thought it was something serious... :D

Yes, it's primarily to do with mass. Massive stars are much hotter, and so the fusion reactions that keep them going proceed much more quickly, giving them a very short life (relatively speaking).

First generation stars would have been primarily hydrogen and helium (the two elements mostly created in the Big Bang) - they would 'cook' heavier elements as they 'burned up' the hydrogen, and even heavier elements would be formed when the star ended its life in a supernova explosion (which is how large stars die).

By contrast, small stars like red dwarfs burn very slowly, and will last much longer than our sun, which has a total lifetime of around 10 billion years - so it's now middle-aged.

Right, I'm back to the footy now (Arsenal one goal up at hakf-time).
 
Cheers, Rynner.

See, you don't need to know, you just need to know who to ask!:D
 
I also asked this question in another forum. Someone said some stars actually had a lifespan of just a few million years. I know that big stars burn hotter and all that, but I can't remember any stars that should have that short lifespans. I still find it a bit strange the idea that out solar system probably had 3-4 suns before.
 
it doesn't mean that our solar system has had previous suns, just that 1 set of suns burned out before another set started up. Of course I know almost nothing about the early conditions of the univers, but it still seems odd. Perhaps, as i suggested, time actually ran quicker back then. So from our perspective the universe looks a certain age because we assume time has always been constant, whereas it's subjective age could be much longer. If time ran quicker in the past, whole civilisations could have been born, evolved and died in the heat death of their suns before ours was even a collection of dust. Kinda ties into the idea of 'progenitors' - a civilisation could have 'seeded' many planets very early on.
 
What I was referring to was that our solar systems must have had some previous suns. That's how the heavier elements came about.
 
no, the solar system we are part of was created from a swirl of dust and gas. Whether or not this was the remains of a specific nova, or a random coagulation within a larger cloud of dispersed matter is presumably unknown. It's not like a lightbulb busting and being replaced, at the end of the solar system cycle everything is blown out into space or collapses into the centre. At least that's what I've been lead to believe :)
 
big bang

I know to scientists the big bang theory is well proven- obvious even. I still find it hard to believe. It just dont make sense.
 
The big bang theory is just that - a theory. It explains many of the things that can be observed or detected pretty well but thats not to say that something better won't come along. Remember BB has got problems.

The idea that the "fine structure constant" isn't a constant is slowly gaining credibility. Theres an unexplained acceleration in distant spacecraft that may cause problems. Also the concept that the speed of light has varied in a manner unassociated with the variation in fine structure constant is needed to explain some of the effects observed. So . . .

. . . Watch this Space!!! :D

added 5 mins later Check out also this story I've just found in breaking news archive - the gravitational constant seems to vary as well. If it vanishes from the net I've kept a copy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top