The first stars in the cosmos may have topped out at over 10,000 times the mass of the sun, roughly 1,000 times bigger than the biggest stars alive today, a new study has found.
Nowadays, the biggest stars are 100 solar masses. But the early universe was a far more exotic place, filled with mega-giant stars that lived fast and died very, very young, the researchers found.
And once these doomed giants died out, conditions were never right for them to form again.
Related: Our expanding universe: Age, history & other facts
The cosmic Dark Ages
More than 13 billion years ago, not long after the Big Bang, the universe had no stars. There was nothing more than a warm soup of neutral gas, almost entirely made up of hydrogen and helium. Over hundreds of millions of years, however, that neutral gas began to pile up into increasingly dense balls of matter. This period is known as the cosmic Dark Ages.
In the modern day universe, dense balls of matter quickly collapse to form stars. But that’s because the modern universe has something that the early universe lacked: A lot of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. These elements are very efficient at radiating energy away. This allows the dense clumps to shrink very rapidly, collapsing to high enough densities to trigger nuclear fusion – the process that powers stars by combining lighter elements into heavier ones.
But the only way to get heavier elements in the first place is through that same nuclear fusion process. Multiple generations of stars forming, fusing, and dying enriched the cosmos to its present state.
Without the ability to rapidly release heat, the first generation of stars had to form under much different, and much more difficult, conditions.
To understand the puzzle of these first stars, a team of astrophysicists turned to sophisticated computer simulations of the dark ages to understand what was going on back then. They reported their findings in January in a paper published to the preprint database arXiv and submitted for peer review to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
The new work features all the usual cosmological ingredients: Dark matter to help grow galaxies, the evolution and clumping of neutral gas, and radiation that can cool and sometimes reheat the gas. But their work includes something that others have lacked: Cold fronts – fast-moving streams of chilled matter – that slam into already formed structures.
The researchers found that a complex web of interactions preceded the first star formation. Neutral gas began to collect and clump together. Hydrogen and helium released a little bit of heat, which allowed clumps of the neutral gas to slowly reach higher densities.
But high-density clumps became very warm, producing radiation that broke apart the neutral gas and prevented it from fragmenting into many smaller clumps. That means stars made from these clumps can become incredibly large.
These back-and-forth interactions between radiation and neutral gas led to massive pools of neutral gas– the beginnings of the first galaxies. The gas deep within these proto-galaxies formed rapidly spinning accretion disks – fast-flowing rings of matter that form around massive objects, including black holes in the modern universe.
Meanwhile, on the outer edges of the proto-galaxies, cold fronts of gas rained down. The coldest, most massive fronts penetrated the proto-galaxies all the way to the accretion disk.
These cold fronts slammed into the disks, rapidly increasing both their mass and density to a critical threshold, thereby allowing the first stars to appear.
Those first stars weren't just any normal fusion factories. They were gigantic clumps of neutral gas igniting their fusion cores all at once, skipping the stage where they fragment into small pieces. The resulting stellar mass was huge.
Those first stars would have been incredibly bright and would have lived extremely short lives, less than a million years. (Stars in the modern universe can live billions of years). After that, they would have died in furious bursts of supernova explosions.
Those explosions would have carried the products of the internal fusion reactions – elements heavier than hydrogen and helium – that then seeded the next round of star formation. But now contaminated by heavier elements, the process couldn't repeat itself, and those monsters would never again appear on the cosmic scene.
Originally published on LiveScience.com.
Follow us @Spacedotcom, or on Facebook and Instagram.
But, wouldn't they have become back holes? How big (massive) are the black holes resulting from supernovas of stars with 10,000 times the mass of our Sun? Do we see evidence of that number of black holes in the early universe? Do we see evidence of that number of early black holes in obsevations of the current local universe - either individually or as merged supermassive black holes, now?
My note. Some of the redshift numbers in the Introduction range 20-30 z when searching for Population III stars. "6 CONCLUSIONS We have studied the first emergence of the cold accretion, or the supersonic accretion flows directly coming into the halo centre, performing a suite of cosmological N-body + SPH simulations. Using the zoom-in technique, we have achieved sufficiently high spatial resolutions to study the detailed flow structure within halos with 𝑀halo ~ 10^7-8 Msun at the epochs of 𝑧 ~ 10-20."
Perhaps JWST will see Population III stars or even 10^4 Msun stars. So far, none observed and shown in nature like we can observe M42 in Orion as an example. What we see in M42 is very different than the early universe in the simulations for Population III stars forming or SMBH forming. Even the CMBR lacks confirmed H-alpha and H1 21-cm line. The primordial gas clouds created during BBN need to be shown in nature. Work continues in this area as the reference paper shows. I will leave the comoving radial distances and space expanding faster than c velocity alone for the large redshifts reported in the paper where perhaps 10^4 Msun stars evolved and Population III stars :)
The first stars may have held up to 100,000 times the mass of the sun, https://phys.org/news/2023-02-stars-held-mass-sun.html, 03-Feb-2023.
So we have 10,000 solar mass stars, perhaps 100,000 solar mass stars in the early universe. Anyone here for a million solar mass stars or even a trillion :) This is good stuff :)
Perhaps, in time, we will see a Pop IV star class for these Adam & Eve stars.
Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
It’s hard to know exactly… a common misconception is that the original matter that came from the big bang was hydrogen, or more specifically exactly how long it took what came from the Big Bang to become hydrogen… most likely as this matter became more and more dense and it became elements that were more and more complex… that yes this would lead to SMBHs at those density levels… but we also know, certain combinations of matter that don’t reach a high enough density level fast enough, can start to become cooler… it’s possible that this happens at larger star levels with earlier combinations; and it was more difficult to reach ”black hole“ density levels… then it is currently
I hadn’t realized you wrote this, this is basically what I was explaining in my response to his original question… it’s also possible that a BH is just a star that reaches a certain density level with a certain combination of complex elements; and that we’re just seeing the effects of it as a “black hole”… Ex. When complex matter becomes so dense in a single area we observe it as a black hole, and nothing is actually different at all… except the entirely of the star has been pulled beyond the funnel of space time… If this is the case, it is possible we might one day see a star lose enough mass and pop into existence from a black hole condition, as the radiation no longer has enough mass to be entirely shielded by the funnel of the fabric of space time…