Primordial Stars Frozen Indefinitely by Dark Matter
Written by Ian O'Neill
It is thought that primordial or "Population III" stars were born in dense clouds of dark matter, 100 million years after the Big Bang. During the period between birth and dark matter depletion, these first stars were effectively but into a "deep freeze" where normal star development was prevented. After this period when all the dark matter fuel had been consumed, these stars were allowed to commence normal stellar evolution, dying out within a few hundred thousand years. But say if a Population III star was born in an exceptionally dense cloud of dark matter? How long could "normal stellar evolution" be frozen for? According to new research, dark matter could theoretically freeze the star indefinitely, over timescales longer than the age of the Universe…
This amazing theory comes from research carried out by Gianfranco Bertone and his team at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics in France. The thought that the first stars, born over 14 billion years ago, could possibly inhabit the Universe today is a very impressive idea. These primordial stars are thought to have been seeded inside dense clouds of dark matter, where gravity caused dark matter compression. As the matter became concentrated, non-baryonic particles may have begun annihilating, stopping natural hydrogen fusion (the mechanism commonly associated with star creation). "Normal" stellar evolution was therefore paused and the "dark star" phase began as dark matter annihilation heated the stellar cores.
It has long been the assumption that the "dark star" phase occurred for a short period of time in the early Universe where vast halos of dark matter may have dominated. Once the dark matter fuel ebbed away, primordial stars were left to self-destruct in a flurry of accelerated evolution. Now Bertone and his colleagues believe a few primordial specimens might be alive today, hidden inside particularly dense clouds of dark matter, in galactic centres, keeping some of the Universe's first stars in a state of suspended animation.
"There could be conditions in the early universe where stars form in big enough reservoirs of dark matter to last until the present day." - Gianfranco Bertone.
One of the most exciting implications to come from this research is the fact that these ancient relics may be observed, what's more, we may have already seen some. "A frozen star would appear much bigger and colder than a normal star with the same mass and chemical composition," says Marco Taoso, co-investigator in the French group. If stars matching the characteristics of these frozen stellar bodies are (or already have been) found, the discovery would have huge consequences for the quantum search for supersymmetry, indicating dark matter was indeed made up of massive "superpartners" to ordinary matter.
If dark matter influenced stars a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, can it still influence stellar evolution today? Researchers believe this could be the case. Present-day stars evolving in regions of dark matter clouds may be influenced by non-baryonic particles. White dwarfs are formed after the death of Sun-like stars and it is believed that should the dwarf star encounter a cloud of dark matter, it could be resurrected as a dark matter burner, shining like 30 Suns.
It will be interesting to see if there have already been any observations of these primordial stars, possibly providing more indirect evidence of dark matter in our Universe.
Source: New Scientist
Filed under: Dark Matter
June 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I'm right there with you, Astrofiend. I think the LHC will help to connect a few dots in the bigger picture. I'd also like to reference the article just below this one entitled "Huge camera set to observe dark energy". This dark energy survey will begin in 2011 and will add even more dots to the picture.
"Dark Energy is one of the biggest puzzles in the whole of Physics, going back to a concept proposed by Einstein 90 years ago. The DES observations will tell us if Einstein was right or if we need a major shift in our understanding of the universe.â€
Thank you Prof. Lahav
June 25th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
zensunni -
I could be wrong but I have a suspicion that we will soon have a "major shift in our understanding of the universe". Einstein aside.. The LHC might even give us some clues..
June 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Since our solar system contains 98% of all it's mass, then why should we think otherwise for our host galaxy. Our sun is huge but please, occams razor says that our galaxy center is 102% bigger!!! That's fricking huge! Enough with this dark matter crap!
June 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
sorry, I meant our sun contains 98% of our solar system mass. kinda makes fun of our puny Earth mass!
June 25th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
….and Jupiter contains almost all of the other 2%… that makes us even more insignificant… So where do we go from here?…..
June 25th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
"Small" and "insignificant" mean two different things. Just because something is big doesn't necessarily mean it's important. That would be like saying and elephant is more significant than a person because it is larger.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
This sounds like to much speculation on my part. Lets prove dark matter exists, before we start creating theories about other things based on its theoretical existence. Seems like to much like a house of cards…
June 26th, 2008 at 12:48 am
Dark matter and dark energy aren't even a theories yet, they are still at the hypothesis stage of science!! And there are several of other hypotheses that explain the same phenomenon as well as DM/DE.
It took a crackpot like Einstein to brush away the cobwebs after the 'aether' hypothesis failed and stalled cosmology for decades. I personally think it'll be a crackpot who banishes the current crop of failed scientists.
And it's pretty much a given that they'll cling to the orthodoxy like their lives depend on it (because at least their jobs do). Look how long it took Hawking to admit he was wrong about data escaping from a black-hole, even though he was PROVEN wrong a decade or more before!
There's hell to pay when you make a mistake in science, lost grants, lost jobs, lost tenure, lost prestige, lost face. Look at what the failure of the AGW hypothesis is doing to the climate science industry, it's completely ruined the scientific method and the ability to do real science!! Is cosmology any different?
June 26th, 2008 at 3:36 am
As I said earlier, Prof. Paul Marmet solved this problem. It's here to read on the http://www. There are two sorts of hydrogen out there, atomic and molecular. One is easy to detect and quantify and the other isn't, all because our technology wasn't able to identify it. Dark matter, grey matter, the missing particle, whatever, the mystery helps the Big Bang Cause. Maybe finding and acknowledging the truth, doesn't.
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy