Astronomers get burst of details from early universe
Unusually bright afterglow records what a galaxy was like soon after Big Bang
Web edition : Tuesday, January 6th, 2009
font_down font_up Text Size

LONG BEACH, Calif. — Like a searchlight illuminating the distant past, the afterglow of a powerful gamma-ray burst has revealed what a stellar nursery in a remote galaxy looked like just 3 billion years after the Big Bang. The burst offers one of the earliest views of a star-forming region in the universe, which is now 13.7 billion years old.

The gamma-ray burst, recorded on June 7, 2008, and dubbed GRB 080607, is believed to have been generated when a massive star suddenly collapsed to form a black hole. While the burst itself lasted for only seconds, its fading afterglow in visible light remained remarkably bright for a full hour.

Jason Prochaska of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his colleagues began observing the visible-light afterglow with the Keck I Telescope on Hawaii’s Mauna Kea less than 20 minutes after the burst was recorded by NASA’s orbiting Swift observatory. 

Prochaska reported the findings on January 6 at the winter meeting of the American Astronomical Society and his team will also describe the study in an upcoming Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The Keck spectrum of the afterglow revealed that the burst originated in a galaxy so remote that the light now reaching Earth was emitted when the galaxy was only 3 billion years old. Among thousands of quasars, hundreds of stars and several tens of gamma-ray bursts Prochaska has examined, “this is the most exciting spectrum I have ever studied,” he says. The spectrum provides “the first view of a star-forming region with a gamma-ray burst,” revealing details on spatial scales of just a few light-years, much finer than can be seen by directly imaging a distant galaxy in visible light or radio.

The galaxy shows a remarkably similar enrichment in chemical elements heavier than helium, along with dust and molecular cloud properties, to what is observed in the Milky Way today. “This is really our first view of these properties in such a distant galaxy, and the surprise is really to see such a mature galaxy in our distant past,” Prochaska says.

The finding “demonstrates the ability of gamma-ray bursts through their brilliance to illuminate the properties of the [distant] universe," comments theorist Don Lamb of the University of Chicago. “They have the power to make it possible to measure things that are otherwise unobservable — in this case the properties of a cold, dark and dense molecular cloud as it was 10 billion years ago.”

The forensic evidence found by Prochaska and his collaborators “points more strongly than ever before to dense molecular clouds as the scene of the deaths of the massive stars that produce gamma-ray bursts,” adds Lamb.

“Within the spectrum, there are several tens of absorption features which remain unidentified,” he adds. “In comparison, there may be only a handful of absorption lines, if any, that I would say are unidentified in the hundreds of other spectra that I have examined closely. Odds are, we are seeing these [absorption lines] for the first time on Earth.”

The afterglow had to be unusually bright to reveal so much about the dusty, star-forming region of the host galaxy from which it originated. Prochaska estimates that the event is the second most luminous afterglow on record, and for an hour remained 10,000 times more luminous than a typical quasar. Had the afterglow been much dimmer, then dust in the galaxy — which absorbs 99 percent of visible light — would have rendered the afterglow invisible.

Over the past several years, astronomers have detected gamma-ray bursts even more remote than this one, bursts that reveal the existence of massive stars as early as 1 billion years after the Big Bang. But because the spectra of the afterglow from GRB 080607 has a much stronger signal and covers a much wider range of wavelengths “we learn far more about the nature of galaxies” from long ago, Prochaska says.


Found in: Atom & Cosmos
Comments 3
  • To illustrate, this is the way I see it.

    All stars that collapse at the end of their lives, if they’re big enough will spew out a percentage of the heavier elements that they have made. It’s sort of like looking at a child’s head and finding that it’s growing hair. Now you say that you’ve spotted a very young galaxy, because you have spotted a GRB coming from it’s location, a naturally it has a spectral reading indicating heavier elements. That’s a given. But how then can you assume that the galaxy is so mature? Just because the GRB has heavier elements doesn’t mean that the galaxy also has an abundance of the same. That’s like assuming that because a child has hair on it’s head, that it must then also have pubic hair as well. It’s still a young immature proto-galaxy isn’t it, or am I seeing this wrong?
    Dusty Matter Dusty Matter
    Jan. 15, 2009 at 7:40am
  • As I understood it, a Gamma Ray Burst that we can see is actually one of the visible jets from a collapsing star, which is why we can see it from great distances because it is a highly focused beam of energy and matter. Now a star that has finally ejected out a host of heavy elements while at the same time becoming a black hole is not something new, and we know that these stars are responsible for the heavier elements in our universe. But that far back in time the universe didn’t have that much of the heavier elements. I don’t understand why you are saying that that galaxy was so mature.

    Isn’t the spectral reading that you obtained from the GRB itself? Wasn’t the material of heavier elements just a product of the GRB, and not from the newly forming galaxy around it?

    You said the the dust from the galaxy did not block the spectral readings. Might that be because the galaxy did not yet have that much dust to begin with? Wouldn’t the GRB be the producer of such dust, and the galaxy was being seeded with heavier elements at that time? How do your readings of light from a GRB relate to what’s in the galaxy? Wouldn’t that be like taking the readings from a supernova in our galaxy and then saying that those readings tell us what’s in our own galaxy? I think that those spectral readings only really tells us what comes from it’s source. The GRB. Is this wrong?
    Dusty Matter Dusty Matter
    Jan. 14, 2009 at 9:17pm
  • My opinion about early Universe.
    ================================
    My opinion.
    ===============.
    1.
    Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
    (all elementary particles and all quarks and their
    girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
    electromagnetic, gravitational, muons… gluons field ….. etc.)
    was assembled in a “single point”.
    What had surrounded the “single point”?
    The answer is : EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
    Ok!
    But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING
    in common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
    I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING
    by the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
    is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
    by the formula T=0K.
    #
    Once there was a “Big Bang”.
    But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
    and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
    Not in T=0K?
    It is clear, that only in EMPTINESS, NOTHING, only in T=0K.
    #
    Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
    in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
    But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
    and its temperature will decrease. What temperature can this radiation
    reach? Not T=0K?
    Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
    we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING: T=0K.
    2.
    Detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
    (the average density of all substance in the Universe is
    approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that the gravitation law
    doesn't work. The Newton/ Einstein's gravitation laws are correct
    only in the local parts of Vacuum. The Universe / Vacuum as a
    whole is endless. But when this Infinity comes nobody knows
    what to do with the infinity. Our tiny minds cannot get a handle
    on its size, so we try to give it shapes and boundaries, all of
    which is folly. Therefore was invented "dark matter" and
    another abstract, ineffective objects.
    But to our happiness the Infinite Vacuum has one physical
    parameter- the temperature. The temperature of the Infinite
    Vacuum is concrete, real fact. It is T=0K.
    3.
    About the theory of “Big Bang” is written many thick
    (very thick) books. But nobody writes about the
    reason of the “Big Bang”. Nobody knows it.
    I know.
    The action, when the God compresses all Universe
    into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
    And action, when the God opens his palm,
    we have named the "Big Bang".
    ============ ==============.
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
    http://www.socratus.com
    http://www.wbabin.net
    http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
    http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
    ====================
    israel socratus israel socratus
    Jan. 7, 2009 at 11:47pm
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator