Have we just found the first stars in the Universe? (Synopsis)

“For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.” -Vincent Van Gogh

When we look out into the Universe, farther back to greater distances, we're also looking back in time, farther and farther into the past. If we could look back far enough, close enough to the Big Bang, we'd be able to see the very first stars ever formed in the Universe: stars formed from the Big Bang's leftover material itself.

Your browser does not support the video tag. Image credit: European Southern Observatory (ESO). Image credit: European Southern Observatory (ESO).

We'd never been able to find these before, but by looking at a starburst galaxy at extremely high redshifts, and measuring its signature spectroscopically, we were able to find strong evidence of hydrogen and helium, but none of carbon, oxygen, or any of the other "first-processed" elements we'd expect had we formed stars before. Is this the first true "Population III" sample in the Universe, or are we fooling ourselves?

Image credit: Gemini Observatory / AURA. Image credit: Gemini Observatory / AURA.

In an exclusive interview with lead author David Sobral, I explore why we think this is likely the first true "first generation" of stars in the Universe!

More like this

"We have been forced to admit for the first time in history not only the possibility of the fact of the growth and decay of the elements of matter. With radium and with uranium we do not see anything but the decay. And yet, somewhere, somehow, it is almost certain that these elements must be…
"They credited us with the birth of that sort of heavy metal thing. Well, if that's the case, there should be an immediate abortion." -Ginger Baker As hard as it may be to believe, take a look outside. I don't mean a glance, I mean to take a real look. At all the things there are to see -- the…
"We don't understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." -Carlos Frenck When we look out into the distant Universe, we're also looking back into the Universe's past. The farther away an object is, the longer it's taken its light to travel from it to our…
"Twinkle, twinkle, quasi-star Biggest puzzle from afar How unlike the other ones Brighter than a billion suns Twinkle, twinkle, quasi-star How I wonder what you are." -George Gamow The Big Bang is one of the greatest, revolutionary ideas in all of modern science, but it's also one of the most…

Ethan Huge fan I loved ur article on the two big bangs because I think that's the biggest problem with the general public and scientist people who aren't interested think that the Big Bang is just a theory because they don't follow they don't understand the idea of the universe expanding from an incredibly small and dense past is fact they just hear or read an article on google that says Big Bang disproved and the author of the paper is talking about a singularity at the absolute beginning if physicist understood that about the public and like your article said split it up into two big bangs then even religious people would understand what's fact and not have a problem with it that being said my question is could u ever see something else come along that could pose a different answer for the cmb and that it's not the left over remnants from the Big Bang or you hear a quack say the universe isn't expanding could you ever see something completely disproving everything to where we go back to thinking the universe is in a steady state to where we know that it didnt expand from an incredibly dense small state thanks big fan would love to get an answer back

By Chris shaw (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

And don't every day discoveries of possible pristine gas or population 3 stars and chemically unevolved galaxies in the early universe help show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the general idea of the evolution of the universe is pretty air tight not just the big things like the cmb or galaxy red shifts or the Doppler effect but discoveries like thes made by astronomers everyday

By Chris shaw (not verified) on 27 Jun 2015 #permalink

Interesting interview, thanks for taking the effort to place these finds in the widest possible context!

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 11 Jul 2015 #permalink

Why do so many people talk about the Big Bang as though it is true. It is still only a theory. Observations do not completely support it and computer simulations are only as good as the theoretical data put into them.
What ever happened to true scientific methods?

By Cleveland Carter (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

@Cleveland Carter #4: Which observations, exactly? Is there any chance you have a reference to a paper (maybe a good review paper) outlining which observations conflict with LCDM cosmology?

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 07 Apr 2016 #permalink

@4: Michael wants your citations on observations that disagree. I'm more interested on papers where I can find these true methods discussed and applied. How old, for example, do your true scientific methods say the earth and the universe are?