Year of the Comet
Comet C/2011 L4 (PANSTARRS)

PANSTARRS information

Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON)

ISON information

Astronomy News
E-mail Article to a FriendPrint ArticleBookmark and Share

First stars in the universe weren't lonely

The findings challenge the previously held wisdom that primordial stars formed in complete isolation, rather than in groups typical for stars in our Milky Way Galaxy.
By McDonald Observatory at University of Texas, Austin, University of Heidelberg, Germany Published: February 4, 2011
First-star-forms
Time sequence of the disk evolution around the first star. The disk gives rise to spiral density waves, compressing the gas, and thus triggering further fragmentation into additional protostars. Already 110 years after the first protostar formed, three neighboring stars have emerged. The assembly process of the first stars will continue for another 100,000 years or so, at which point a massive double-star will likely have formed, possibly accompanied by a small group of somewhat lower-mass stars. Clark, Glover, Smith, Greif, Klessen, Bromm (Univ.of Heidelberg, UT Austin)/Texas Advanced Computing Center
The first stars to form in the universe were not as lonely as previously thought. These are the findings of an international collaboration between researchers at the Center of Astronomy at Heidelberg University, the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, and the University of Texas at Austin.

The astrophysicists used state-of-the-art computer simulations to model the birth of the first stars to form after the Big Bang. The group, led by Paul Clark from Heidelberg University and Volker Bromm from the University of Texas at Austin, demonstrated that the disk that surrounds primordial stars during their infancy can break up to form companion stars. These findings challenge the previously held wisdom that primordial stars formed in complete isolation, rather than in groups typical for stars in our Milky Way Galaxy.

"This simulation pushes our decadelong quest to understand the formation of the first stars one crucial step ahead," Bromm said. "Utilizing cutting-edge supercomputer technology, such as the RANGER system at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC), we now know that the first stars typically did not form alone."

From studying the cosmic microwave background, astronomers know that the universe started out simple. It was almost completely smooth and uniform, with only tiny fluctuations in density and temperature. Today, however, the universe is highly structured and complicated. Cosmic evolution is a progression from simplicity to complexity, with the formation of the first stars marking a primary milestone in this transition.

A few million years after the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe shifted the cosmic radiation field far into infrared wavebands, and so to a human observer the universe at that time would have been completely dark. The first stars lit up this darkness by shining at visible and ultraviolet wavelengths, bringing an end to the "cosmic dark ages."

Primordial star formation was a very different process from the type of star formation that occurs today. However, one central theme is common to both: the fierce competition between gravitational attraction pulling the star-forming gas together, and thermal energy trying to push it apart.

As gravity squeezes, the gas heats up, so for gravity to win, the gas needs to rid itself of the extra heat produced during the collapse. This was more difficult for gas in the early universe than in galaxies like our Milky Way today. When the universe was first formed, its gas did not contain elements such as carbon or oxygen, which cool the gas and make it easier to collapse.

Because gas in the early universe did not contain these elements, scientists believed that primordial stars were solitary massive objects. The calculations by Clark and his colleagues demonstrate that this simple picture needs considerable revision due to the physics of the disks that build up around primordial stars as they form.

Just like the disk around the young Sun that fragmented to build up the planets in our solar system, accretion disks that formed around the first stars were also found to be highly susceptible to fragmentation. Therefore, instead of forming in isolation, the first stars almost always occur as members of multiple stellar systems, with separations as small as the distance between Earth and the Sun.

"At the end of the primordial star formation process, a massive double-star system likely emerges, driving cosmic history through the production of high-energy photons and the first heavy chemical elements,” Bromm said. “The binary nature of the first stars opens up exciting possibilities for detecting them, such as in hyper-energetic gamma-ray bursts, or through their strong X-ray radiation."

Future space missions, such as EXIST and JANUS, are being planned specifically to detect gamma-ray bursts from the early universe.

There is also a possibility that some of the first stars may have been ejected from their birth group before they had grown into massive stars due to encounters with their neighbors. This could lead to primordial stars with a broad range of masses — short-lived, high-mass stars that produce high-energy photons capable of ionizing the primordial hydrogen gas and enriching the cosmic gas with the first heavy chemical elements, and long-lived, low-mass stars that could survive for billions of years.

The behemoths of the early universe, the massive stars that drive cosmic evolution, were accompanied by a retinue of smaller stars, similar to the Sun. Intriguingly, some low-mass primordial stars might even have survived to the present day, allowing us to probe the earliest stages of star and galaxy formation directly in our cosmic backyard.

"The pursuit to elucidate the end of the cosmic dark ages is heating up, getting us closer to the final goal of solving the mystery of first light in the universe, Broom said. “But many challenges still lie ahead to be tackled by the ever-more powerful supercomputers at TACC and elsewhere and by NASA's new James Webb Space Telescope."

Find us on FacebookFind us on Twitter
User Comments
Be the first to leave your comment below!

Only registered members of Astronomy.com are allowed to comment on this article. Registration is FREE and only takes a couple minutes.

Register Today!
 
JOHN MOES from MICHIGAN said:
Assume a BB. A thousand years later the "visible" horizon of each particle was 1000 light years away. All the matter, in the billions of galaxies within visible range of us now, was packed solid inside that sphere with radius 1000 lyrs. In my eye is H, a hydrogen atom. It's old. in year 1000, matter A, 1000 lyrs away from H was receding at near c the speed of light. Other matter 800 lyrs away was receding at 0.8c, B at 0.4 and C at 0.2. Beyond H's horizon matter was receding at 2,3,10+ times the speed of light but none of the light emitted by that matter will reach H.
Light from the horizon which was emitted when the U was 1000 years old (or whenever it could get through the crowd), started out 1000 lyrs from H, and never got farther than 1000 lyrs from H, and 13 billion years later is just now reaching H as CMBR.
When stars starting forming in that thick soup, they couldn't have been very far apart, could they? - as close together as stars in the center of a galaxy? As space expanded between clumps, where gravity could overcome the expansion, the star that were close enough together stayed together. One would think that stars and galaxies formed more by space forming between them than by coagulation.
4 stars
CHRIS R BAKER from CALIFORNIA said:
I have an idea with absolutely no data to back it up. Based on the idea that expansion/inflation happened, and scientists have discovered that as our universe grows, that growth accelerates, due to dark energy, to the point that eventually the dark energy will even tear apart protons, has anyone looked into, or is it even possible to look into, the idea that before inflation there was, from our point of view, a tiny little infinite universe whose inhabitants looked at their universe the same way we look at ours? and that our universe's component particles being torn apart in a final spasm of dark energy, could be the inflation of the next stage of a much larger infinite universe? and it's inhabitants will look at ours as a infinitely small point?
5 stars
ANTHONY BARREIRO from CALIFORNIA said:
Firstly, this is very interesting computer modeling and theoretical work. Lumpiness and the chaotic variety it introduces into our universe is aesthetically very pleasing. And, as Joseph McCauley notes, this particular work has nothing to do with the Big Bang per se.
Regarding the separate question of the validity of the Big Bang theory, I find it helpful to remember that the term "Big Bang" was coined as a sarcastic joke by Fred Hoyle, a proponent of the competing Steady State theory, which held that the universe has always had the general shape it has today. Cosmic expansion has been proven through many intersecting empirical observations and thus the Steady State theory has been rejected. The Big Bang is merely a recognition that if the universe has been expanding throughout its lifespan, there must have been a moment when the universe's infinite mass existed in a single point in space. We are never going to observe the moment of the Big Bang, but it's a useful theoretical reference point.
4 stars
DOUGLAS JACKSON said:
I am delighted to see that scientists now see star formation involving compression and fragmentation, even in the early universe. I have for thirty+ years been putting forward the idea that this fragmentation process does not magically stop at objects about the size of our Sun, but the fragmentation continues until planetary gas giants (in a bloated form and close to their star) form naturally as part of the star forming process. The break up of these may form rocky bits which only then require acretion to make earthlike planets.
4 stars
JOSEPH T MCCAWLEY from MASSACHUSETTS said:
Let's not throw out the "Big Bang Baby" with the bathwater! What we have here is only one computer simulation and absolutly no worthy evidence or data that threatens the overall BBT.
The salient point here is the physics of early "stellar" formation not the overall cosmological beginning!
ROBERTA DWYER from PENNSYLVANIA said:
Knowing that the Big Bang is not accurate since 80 years have passed and still no logic for Time and Temperature, it is definitely time for a new creation of the Universe theory. See the 2008 Dwyer "Sun Creation Theory." With the premise that Suns birth/create Suns, this could explain a lot of the missing data. All theories should be evaluated and proven worthy. Knowing that stars formed from stars and gathered into "galaxies" soon after birth makes logical sense. The Big Bang takes millions of years to form a galaxy and then -- then introduce stars. This never made sense to me. Time for new thinking.
3 stars
FIVISH FIVISH said:
So there were galaxies way back rather than individual stars as BBT predicted. Another nail in the BBT coffin. Come on, just admit that the universe is infinite in time and space.
SEARCH SITE
Subscriber Only Access
Subscriber Only Content
Look for this icon. This denotes premium subscriber content. Learn more »
Become a Member of Astronomy.com
Register today for access to more valuable resource information.
Interact in our forums, comment on articles, receive our newsletter and much more!
Not a member?
Subscriber and Member Login
Password
Remember me