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

Hubble pins down age of oldest known star

The star could be as old as 14.5 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.
By STScl, Baltimore, Maryland Published: March 8, 2013
Oldest-star-HD140283
This is a Digitized Sky Survey image of the oldest star with a well-determined age in our galaxy. The aging star, cataloged as HD 140283, lies 190.1 light-years away. Hubble Space Telescope was used to narrow the measurement uncertainty on the star's distance, and this helped refine the calculation of a more precise age of 14.5 billion years (plus or minus 800 million years). // Digitized Sky Survey (DSS), STScI/AURA, Palomar/Caltech, and UKSTU/AAO
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 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 and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland.

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 an early time before the universe was largely “polluted” with heavier elements forged inside stars through nucleosynthesis — the Methuselah star has 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 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.

Astronomers can measure the parallax of nearby stars by observing them from opposite points in Earth’s orbit around the Sun. They then can calculate precisely the star’s true distance from Earth through straightforward triangulation.

Once the true distance is known, scientists can calculate an exact value for the star’s intrinsic brightness. 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 than that 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. A new idea is 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 mph (1,300,000 km/h). 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 milliarcsecond an hour) that Hubble could actually photograph its movement in a few hours.

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!
 
HENRY K POH from NEW YORK said:
Consider the possibility it is not even a 'star' . . . .
CARLOS ZEITOUNE from BRAZIL said:
What about asking help to the famous (not so much at all) XVII th Century philosopher BARUCH DE SPINOZA concerning his concepts of absolutely infinite and infinite in its gender?
4 stars
KENNETH R MURPHY from OREGON said:
I've always maintained that the Hubble theory does not cover all the possible variables... I feel that the light wave/particle stream loses energy over vast distances/time by slowly changing FREQUENCY of ROTATION. Also, it is now well known that light changes forward speed when traveling through different media And that SPACE is NOT an empty,matterless void as was once assumed. So, all you mathamatical types, get out your electronic pencils and get to work! P.S.,,, If you work hard enough, YOU might be the one to figure out how to create a REPELLANT/opposite FORCE to light waves and then, considering that light travels a whole bunch further than magnetic or gravetational forces...... hoo boy, focus on star, initiate opposite force, HANG ON TIGHT!
5 stars
DAWN MILLER from MARYLAND said:
Perhaps we should revise the age of the universe to at least the age of this star?
5 stars
ASHWAPATI SAXENA from INDIA said:
It is really a mind boggling inference that a Star could be older than Universe itself. The Universe started with a Big-Bang. Was the star already present in the vicinity of the Universe before the Big-Bang occurred, or the Cosmology is wrong. There is a dire need of further exploration in this direction.
4 stars
JACQUES POULIN said:
very interesting.
4 stars
THOMAS A WALKER from MICHIGAN said:
time force and dark energy are the same.
4 stars
ROBERT DANIELS from TEXAS said:
The Methusaslah star's age is another indicator, besides dark matter, that the Big Bang theory does not really define the origin and age of our universe.
JAN OLSEN from NORWAY said:
So the age of the universe is still uncertain? And also the determination of the 'age of light' is also uncertain.
If the earth have been around for 4 billion years, and humans for just a small fraction of that time, and our recorded observation time for just a couple of 100 years, it is no wonder why the light of distant stars will never have the chance reach us!
The earth will be gone long before the light has even done half the travel distance!
So is it just that simple?
Dark matter is just like the matter we can observe, but too far away for the light to be able to reach us?
We have been able to slow down the speed of light!
Meaning it has to move 'faster than the speed of light' to regain its higher constant speed!
And if we could 'reverse' the speed of light, would time then move backwards??
I think there must be something missing in the theory.
Light cannot have a constant speed. Or the measures of 'distance' must be wrong. And the time lapse cannot be universal.
Meaning that the mass of the universe is unlimited and the amount of energy is neverending.
Don't ask me how to prove that with the maths we know today.
KEN WILSON from NORTH CAROLINA said:
This would seem to invalidate the "Big Bang Theory". It is more conceivable to believe that the universe is infinite than to believe in an inexplicable expansion from a point of incomprehensible infinite density.
12
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