The first stars, and looking back into the past.

[NaptownKnight]

Well, I have been enthralled with astronomy recently, after reading an article on BBC about the first stars. Supposedly, the first stars would have been massive (the size of Earth's orbit) and would have been fed off of dark matter. Now, to the other part of this and why this is so interesting to me. Distances in space are so large that it takes light quite some time to travel from point a to b, therefore whatever you are seeing actually happened before the present. When the new telescope launches we will be able to see farther than ever, and therefore we will be able to see farther back in time. Maybe we will be able to spot some of these "proto stars", but what gets me wondering is wouldn't we be able to see the Big Bang if we have a strong enough telescope? It's just interesting in so many ways to me, we will be able to see how are universe was formed, finally. What do you guys think about this?

[roy34543]

I think its interesting but will create far more new questons then it will answer if we see a few old planets.
The universe is usually hypothesized to be created by a super-big Hypernova btw (if i remember correctly) which noone knows exactly how it came to be.

[Syron]

but what gets me wondering is wouldn't we be able to see the Big Bang if we have a strong enough telescope?

Well if you mean visibly, no.

You see just after the big bang the universe was a superdense plasma. This meant that photons were trapped, as as soon as they were emitted they were captured by highly ionized particles. Only after recombination, where neutral atoms formed, could photons escape. This means that there will be no photon radiation from the big bang.

That does not mean you cannot learn about the early stages of the universe.

I am part of a student-staff group working on a instrument to detect b-modes (a type of polarisation) in the Cosmic Microwave Background that should be caused by primordial gravitational waves. If we find them it may be possible to understand what went on just after the singularity collapsed.

[Simetrical]

I think its interesting but will create far more new questons then it will answer if we see a few old planets.

I don't think so. We already have most of the questions. Of course, it's possible some new datum will cause a paradigm shift that invalidates all old questions and raises tons of totally new ones, but we'd still know more than we did before, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

The universe is usually hypothesized to be created by a super-big Hypernova btw (if i remember correctly) which noone knows exactly how it came to be.

Well, not really. The Big Bang is not any kind of nova. A nova is a particular astronomical phenomenon, basically an exploding star. There were no stars at the time of the Big Bang, and no novae. The Big Bang could be thought of as a really big explosion, caused by a ludicrous amounts of energy packed into a tiny space.

I wouldn't say that we don't know how the Big Bang came to be, either. I'd say we don't even know whether that's a meaningful question! According to some conjectures, there was no time before the Big Bang, in which case it could not logically be caused by anything.

[Dayman]

I am part of a student-staff group working on a instrument to detect b-modes (a type of polarisation) in the Cosmic Microwave Background that should be caused by primordial gravitational waves. If we find them it may be possible to understand what went on just after the singularity collapsed.

That is mind blowing.

I wish I was smart enough to do stuff like that...I'm only smart enough to deal with the earth sciences (minus meteorology).

Sometimes I lay in bed and just stare at the sky thinking about this stuff.

[Cataclysm]

That is mind blowing.

I wish I was smart enough to do stuff like that...I'm only smart enough to deal with the earth sciences (minus meteorology).

Sometimes I lay in bed and just stare at the sky thinking about this stuff.

Do you have a skylight over your bed? If so, I envy you.

When you are absorbed in the stars its a very good time to relax and think. So many things to ponder.

[Dayman]

Do you have a skylight over your bed? If so, I envy you.

Nah, but I have a big window. Shame is that I can only see maybe 50 stars. But if I head half a mile out of town it jumps to hundreds.

When you are absorbed in the stars its a very good time to relax and think. So many things to ponder.

Yeah.

[Syron]

That is mind blowing.

I wish I was smart enough to do stuff like that...I'm only smart enough to deal with the earth sciences (minus meteorology).

Sometimes I lay in bed and just stare at the sky thinking about this stuff.

Smart? Haha, i wouldn't go that far. Dedicated at most!

If you're interested there are two Scientific American articles that explain what we're looking for.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/%7Ekamion/echoes.pdf

http://background.uchicago.edu/%7Ewh...rs/HuWhi04.pdf

[NaptownKnight]

That is pretty cool Syron. I spend a lot of time thinking about the mysteries of space, and the secrets of our universe.

My question is why wouldn't you be able to see the big bang? If we could see far enough then wouldn't we be able to see it, or part of it?

[Dayman]

My question is why wouldn't you be able to see the big bang? If we could see far enough then wouldn't we be able to see it, or part of it?

If it wasn't giving off photons of visible light...well, what do you think?

[NaptownKnight]

If it wasn't giving off photons of visible light...well, what do you think?

LOL I missed that part of Syron's explanation.

[Simetrical]

If it wasn't giving off photons of visible light...well, what do you think?

Not just visible light, any light.

[Dayman]

Not just visible light, any light.

In that definition would that include the entire spectrum?

What exactly is light if not visible? So infrared waves are light as well?

[Gary88]

I think its interesting but will create far more new questons then it will answer if we see a few old planets.

i think that would just make scientists happy...or kill themselves it really depends.

That is mind blowing.

I wish I was smart enough to do stuff like that...I'm only smart enough to deal with the earth sciences (minus meteorology).

Sometimes I lay in bed and just stare at the sky thinking about this stuff.

i am living proof that even a retard can get on to a physics degree.

[Dayman]

i am living proof that even a retard can get on to a physics degree.

I'm more interesting in applying science than the theoretical side. Geography is fun.

[Gary88]

i too like geography, i think we are the minority because many people consider it boring.

[Dayman]

i too like geography, i think we are the minority because many people consider it boring.

Which part? The map aspect? Or the fieldwork type aspect?

[Gary88]

just generally

[Dayman]

just generally

Yeah, I'm one of the few people in my Mapping class that enjoys using ArcMap and plotting things. I absolutely love it.

[Syron]

Indeed, i was being very liberal with what i called "visible", i mean any EM radiation.