Most Distant Galaxy EVER Discovered

[bodykey]

Scientists have discovered the most distant galaxy on record EVER, showing a redshift of 7.51 and showing it existed only 700 million years after the big bang.

I don't know about you, but I wish my eyesight was this good :P

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7472/full/nature12657.html

 

[Chronos]

Yep, but, the Milky Way has that beat. It formed a mere ~500 million years after the BB.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's amazing how ignorant I am. I always thought stars burned for billions of years.

This galaxy’s colours are consistent with significant metal content, implying that galaxies become enriched rapidly. We calculate a surprisingly high star-formation rate of about 330 solar masses per year, which is more than a factor of 100 greater than that seen in the Milky Way.

Metal content implies at least 2nd generation stars, so relatively short lived stars had to supernovae to create the stars in this 700 million year old galaxy.

I've spent over 2 hours googling and finally found my answer:

What Were the First Stars?
...
This first generation of stars, which astronomers call Population III stars, would have lived short violent lives. They probably lasted just a million years or so, and then detonated as supernovae.
...

I wonder how big a telescope we would need to see the first generation stars?

Never mind. It was in the next paragraph.

…
The next generation of space telescopes, like the James Webb Space Telescope might be able to push the observable Universe back to these first stars.
...

 

[Chronos]

The JWST will be amazing. It is iffy if it will be able to detect any primordial supernova. It would be fascinating if it could.

 

[OmCheeto]

The JWST will be amazing. It is iffy if it will be able to detect any primordial supernova. It would be fascinating if it could.

We were discussing the big bang theory in another thread this morning. Then, on my drive into work this morning, this thread came to mind. I was thinking that a solar birth rate of 1 per day, was pretty stellar, compared to our 1 per year. I thought to myself, that you should post that birth rate in the BBT FAQ.


But then I thought some more about this, and decided that they'd just discovered the galaxy a week ago. How on Earth did they figure out a 300/yr sbr, from only a weeks worth of data?

I decided that you cosmos people might be messing with my mind.

I no longer believe in the big bang theory. :tongue:

------------------------------
ps. I found another thing that I will miss when I retire. I have access to Nature, for free.

 

[mfb]

It's amazing how ignorant I am. I always thought stars burned for billions of years.

Millions to trillions, billions are a good estimate :p.

But then I thought some more about this, and decided that they'd just discovered the galaxy a week ago. How on Earth did they figure out a 300/yr sbr, from only a weeks worth of data?

You can't see "oh look, there is a new star!" anyway, the formation process takes thousands to millions of years. You can estimate how many stars with which lifetime there are, and calculate the formation rate based on that number. If there are 300 million stars which life for 1 million years each, and the star formation rate was stable the last million years, there are 300 new stars per year (simplified description).