By Paul Nethercott
Sunday, 27 June
2021
Scientists use
various methods to determine the age of stars such as radiometric, nuclear and
spin down ages. These produce many ages that are impossible. Some have future
ages showing the star does not exist in the present but in the future. Many
give ages well more than the assumed 13.8-billion-year evolutionary age of the
universe. There are many conflicting dates for the one star.
A fifty-page article recently points that
there is only one star whose age is accurately known: There
is exactly one stellar age that is both precise and accurate, that of the Sun,
and it illustrates some of the inherent problems in determining ages. The Sun
is 4,567 ± 5 million years old. The extraordinary precision of 1 million
years represents measurement error (individual measurements are precise to 0.6 million
years, 2002), and the only slightly larger systematic error of 5 million years
is due to uncertainty over the precise sequence of events in the early years of
the Solar Systems history. That systematic error should lessen as we
understand those events better. This age is determined from the decay of
radionuclides. (Soderblom,
2010, P. 586)
This date is determined by radiometric dating
which has been shown by creationists to have many inherent problems. According to the Big Bang
theory the age of the Universe is 10 to 13.75 billion years. Standard
evolutionist publications give the age of the universe as 13.75 billion
years. (Wikipedia)
Research done in 2002 (Schatz, 2002) on the
star CS 31082-001 has
produced an array of dates [Table 1] between 300 million and 34 billion years
old. Schatz claims that the stars age can be determined accurately: Stellar elemental abundance observations of
long-lived radioactive nuclear species synthesized in the r-process can be used
to derive estimates for the ages and history of the underlying nucleosynthesis
events. (Schatz, 2002, P. 626) In
another place he admits dates have appeared far older than the Big Bang: The resulting age range for the r-process elements in CS 31082-001 is 918 Gyr. (Schatz,
2002, P. 627) Another problem are negative or future ages (Schatz, 2002,
P. 635) which are impossibly young. Dates as low as -8 billion years and
-5.1 billion years have been obtained.
Table 1
|
Dating |
Evolution |
Mass |
Age |
Error |
Max Age |
Min Age |
|
Method |
Model |
Model |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
|
U/Th |
Single |
EFT |
3.2 |
2.3 |
5.5 |
0.9 |
|
U |
Single |
EFT |
2.3 |
1.8 |
4.1 |
0.5 |
|
Th |
Single |
EFT |
0.3 |
5.7 |
6 |
-5.4 |
|
U/Th |
Uniform |
EFT |
7.3 |
6.3 |
13.6 |
1 |
|
U |
Uniform |
EFT |
5 |
4.2 |
9.2 |
0.8 |
|
Th |
Uniform |
EFT |
1 |
11 |
12 |
-10 |
|
U/Th |
Single |
HFB |
0.3 |
2.3 |
2.6 |
-2 |
|
U |
Single |
HFB |
4.9 |
1.8 |
6.7 |
3.1 |
|
Th |
Single |
HFB |
14.8 |
5.7 |
20.5 |
9.1 |
|
U/Th |
Uniform |
HFB |
0.8 |
4.7 |
5.5 |
-3.9 |
|
U |
Uniform |
HFB |
11 |
4.9 |
15.9 |
6.1 |
|
Th |
Uniform |
HFB |
34 |
16 |
50 |
18 |
|
|
|
Max Age |
34 |
16 |
50 |
18 |
|
|
|
Min Age |
0.3 |
1.8 |
2.6 |
-10 |
(Schatz, 2002, P. 632)
Table 1 contains four
negative dates [Red] and seven dates [Blue] older than the Big Bang [14 billion
Years] explosion. There is a 60 billion age range between the smallest and
oldest dates.
The author uses
various unproved assumptions to obtain dates. The author uses the word assumption
over 20 times. While all our r-process models pass this important test, the
large spread of the single-event ages from the HFBCS-1 calculations is a
problem. Of course, we do not necessarily expect consistent single-event ages,
as the entire history of Galactic chemical evolution is surely not
characterized by a single burst of elemental enrichment. (Schatz, 2002, P. 632) There are three age graphs (Schatz,
2002, P. 635, 636) in Schatzs article. If we put them into Microsoft Paint we can use the pixel coordinates to work out the
values of the data points.
Table 2
|
Sample |
Uranium
Age (Ga) |
Thorium
Age (Ga) |
Difference |
|
1 |
7.33 |
-10.12 |
17.44 |
|
2 |
8.55 |
-6.10 |
14.65 |
|
3 |
7.85 |
-8.72 |
16.57 |
|
4 |
9.59 |
-2.97 |
12.56 |
|
5 |
8.55 |
-6.45 |
15.00 |
|
6 |
8.90 |
-5.41 |
14.30 |
|
7 |
8.90 |
-4.71 |
13.60 |
|
8 |
9.07 |
-18.49 |
27.56 |
|
9 |
4.71 |
-5.93 |
10.64 |
|
10 |
8.72 |
1.05 |
7.67 |
|
11 |
10.81 |
-6.80 |
17.62 |
|
12 |
8.20 |
8.72 |
0.52 |
|
13 |
13.43 |
12.03 |
1.40 |
|
14 |
14.65 |
-0.35 |
15.00 |
|
Average |
9.23 |
-3.87 |
13.18 |
|
Maximum |
14.65 |
12.03 |
27.56 |
|
Minimum |
4.71 |
-18.49 |
0.52 |
|
Difference |
9.94 |
30.52 |
27.03 |
(Schatz, 2002, P. 635)
Table 2 contains
eleven negative dates [Red] and one date older [Blue] than the Big Bang [14 billion
Years] explosion. There is a 33 billion age range between the smallest and
oldest dates.
Table 3
Sample |
Uranium
Age (Ga) |
Thorium
Age (Ga) |
Difference |
|
1 |
13.48 |
15.00 |
1.52 |
|
2 |
11.04 |
7.68 |
3.35 |
|
3 |
11.65 |
9.51 |
2.13 |
|
4 |
11.34 |
7.68 |
3.66 |
|
5 |
11.65 |
9.21 |
2.44 |
|
6 |
11.04 |
6.77 |
4.27 |
|
7 |
11.34 |
8.29 |
3.05 |
|
8 |
10.43 |
4.94 |
5.49 |
|
9 |
11.04 |
7.07 |
3.96 |
|
10 |
12.56 |
11.95 |
0.61 |
|
11 |
11.65 |
9.21 |
2.44 |
|
12 |
13.17 |
13.78 |
0.61 |
|
13 |
12.26 |
10.43 |
1.83 |
|
14 |
15.91 |
22.32 |
6.40 |
|
15 |
13.17 |
13.78 |
0.61 |
|
16 |
14.39 |
17.44 |
3.05 |
|
17 |
12.56 |
12.26 |
0.30 |
|
18 |
12.87 |
12.87 |
0.00 |
|
Average |
12.31 |
11.12 |
2.54 |
|
Maximum |
15.91 |
22.32 |
6.40 |
|
Minimum |
10.43 |
4.94 |
0.00 |
|
Difference |
5.49 |
17.38 |
6.40 |
(Schatz, 2002, P. 636)
Table 3 contains six
dates older than the Big Bang explosion and a seventeen-billion-year age range.
However, the resulting U/X (weighted average 7:6 +/- 2:3 Ga), Th/X (weighted
average -8:1 +/- 5:8 Ga), and U/Th (15:5 +/- 3:2 Ga) ages clearly do not agree
with one another. (Schatz, 2002, P. 634)
Table 4
|
Sample |
Uranium
Age (Ga) |
Thorium
Age (Ga) |
Difference |
|
1 |
13.19 |
8.55 |
4.64 |
|
2 |
14.64 |
12.75 |
1.88 |
|
3 |
13.77 |
10.00 |
3.77 |
|
4 |
15.65 |
15.65 |
0.00 |
|
5 |
14.20 |
11.88 |
2.32 |
|
6 |
14.93 |
13.48 |
1.45 |
|
7 |
14.78 |
13.91 |
0.87 |
|
8 |
10.72 |
0.14 |
10.58 |
|
9 |
14.78 |
12.75 |
2.03 |
|
10 |
16.96 |
19.86 |
2.90 |
|
11 |
14.35 |
12.03 |
2.32 |
|
12 |
19.13 |
27.25 |
8.12 |
|
13 |
20.58 |
30.58 |
10.00 |
|
14 |
16.38 |
18.70 |
2.32 |
|
15 |
15.51 |
15.36 |
0.14 |
|
Average |
15.30 |
14.86 |
0.44 |
|
Maximum |
20.58 |
30.58 |
10.58 |
|
Minimum |
10.72 |
0.14 |
0 |
|
Difference |
9.86 |
30.72 |
10.58 |
(Schatz, 2002, P. 636)
Table 4 contains eighteen
dates older than the Big Bang explosion and an age range of 30 billion years.
Assumptions/Problems
1
Although presently ad hoc, this actinide boost assumption solves the
apparent problem of the relative age difference compared with other metal-poor
halo stars and, at the same time, the problem of the inconsistency of ages
based on U/(stable nucleus), Th/(stable nucleus) and
U/Th ratios.
2
An important assumption underlying all Th cosmo-chronometry
applications is that all r-process events produce the same relative abundance
pattern among the heavier species, especially the same ratio of Th to a stable
rare earth reference element, often taken to be Eu.
3
In contrast to the multievent canonical r-process model, the additional
assumption of a smooth behaviour of temperature and neutron density in the
r-process reduces the number of free parameters considerably.
4
If one assumes a solar zero-age abundance distribution, then the consistency
requirement for the Th/X, U/X, and U/Th ages can be used to test and constrain
the r-process model
used.
5
The calculations are performed within the waiting-point approximation,
assuming complete (n, )( , n) equilibrium within an
isotopic chain.
6
A single r-process component is calculated assuming irradiation of an Fe
seed, with constant neutron number density n and constant temperature T, for a
time.
7
The r-process abundances are then calculated as a superposition of many
components, assuming a power-law distribution of the component weights, and
irradiation timescales, as a function of neutron density.
8
We display the abundances after -delayed fission and neutron emission,
but before -decay, to illustrate the impact of different nuclear structure
assumptions along the r-process paths.
9
We assume that fission is always faster than neutron emission.
10
For example, the assumption of a single r-process event provides a
model-independent lower limit for the age of the pre-solar nebula.
11
As an example, Table lists the ages obtained under the assumption of a
uniform r-process production, which shows indeed a strongly increased
inconsistency for the HFBCS-1 ages.
12
Estimates are based on the r-process model predictions with two mass
models and with two simple assumptions on Galactic chemical evolution.
13
This shows that our choice of r-process model parameters, based on a
smooth extrapolation from the solar abundance pattern into the actinide region
and reproducing the currently predicted solar Pb r-process abundance, is not
appropriate for predicting the zero-age U and Th abundances in CS 31082-001
(assuming that a single r-process event, or r-process events with time
intervals that are small compared to the total age, is responsible for the r-process
enrichment of CS 31082-001).
14
It is not unreasonable to assume that the prediction of the U/Th ratio
produced in the r-process is sufficiently robust to be still applicable to CS 31082-001.
The main argument for this assumption is the fact that both elements are
synthesized from the decay of a large number of
progenitor nuclei synthesized by the r-process in the same region of the chart
of nuclides. With our r-process model, this assumption would yield an age
estimate for the r-process elements in CS 31082-001 of 15 3:2 Gyr.
15
The only possibility of resolving these problems, while still upholding
the principle of a universal r-process pattern, would be to assume that the
derived very small Th/X ages
are correct, but that the r-process elements in CS 31082-001 were
implanted long after the formation of the star.
16
Indeed, Qian & Wasserburg speculate that
the large enrichment of heavy r-process elements in CS 31082-001 can only be
explained by exposure of the star to a nearby r-process event, for example, the
supernova explosion of a companion star.
17
We can estimate a lower limit of the expected lead abundance in our
proposed scenario by assuming that the U and Th enrichment is due to an
enhancement of abundances in the A = 232-253 region (before -decay) only.
18
However, it is significantly narrower than the range of predictions given
in Goriely & Clerbaux
for calculations with different nuclear physics assumptions (0.22 to
+0.05).
19
Clearly, an identification of the r-process site and more realistic
r-process models would also be important to verify the assumptions underlying the
classical r-process model.
20
If we assume that this enhancement does not affect the U/Th ratio
produced in the r-process, we find an age of 15.5 Gyr
for the r-process elements in CS 31082-001.
21
While all our r-process models pass this important test, the large spread
of the single-event ages from the HFBCS-1 calculations is a problem.
22
It is perhaps suggestive that both problems can be remedied by the proposed
initial U and Th enhancement.
Another star dated has an
age range of 43.8 billion years. Radioactive dating for CS 29491−069
with the observed thorium and rare-earth element abundance pairs results in an
average age of
9.5 Gyr, when based on solar r-process residuals, and
17.6 Gyr, when using HEW model predictions.
Chronometry seems to fail in the case of HE 1219−0312, resulting in a
negative age due to its high thorium abundance. (Hayek, 2009, Page 511)
Fourteen dates are
negative. Eleven dates are over 16 billion years old. CS 29491-069 has an age
range of 43.8 billion years (-7.3 to 36.5 billion years old).
Table 5
|
Isotope |
CS
29491-069 |
CS
29491-069 |
Age |
HE 1219-0312 |
HE 1219-0312 |
Age |
|
Ratios |
Residual
Age |
HEW
Age |
Difference |
Residual Age |
HEW Age |
Difference |
|
Th/Ba |
1.9 |
17.1 |
15.2 |
-6.5 |
8.7 |
15.2 |
|
Th/La |
0.9 |
16.5 |
15.6 |
-5.7 |
9.9 |
15.6 |
|
Th/Ce |
17.1 |
24.6 |
7.5 |
-0.6 |
6.8 |
7.4 |
|
Th/Pr |
10.3 |
13.2 |
2.9 |
-6.5 |
-3.6 |
2.9 |
|
Th/Nd |
10.5 |
13.4 |
2.9 |
-2.6 |
0.4 |
3 |
|
Th/Sm |
12 |
11.8 |
-0.2 |
-0.1 |
-0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Th/Eu |
3 |
3.8 |
0.8 |
-4.9 |
-4.1 |
0.8 |
|
Th/Gd |
13.5 |
21.1 |
7.6 |
-0.5 |
7.1 |
7.6 |
|
Th/Dy |
14 |
24.2 |
10.2 |
1.8 |
12 |
10.2 |
|
Th/Ho |
4.4 |
21.2 |
16.8 |
-7.3 |
9.5 |
16.8 |
|
Th/Er |
16.8 |
26.4 |
9.6 |
1.8 |
11.5 |
9.7 |
|
Th/Tm |
|
|
|
0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Th/Hf |
|
|
|
-2.1 |
24.2 |
26.3 |
|
Th/Os |
36.5 |
24.6 |
13.9 |
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
36.5 |
26.4 |
16.2 |
1.8 |
24.2 |
26.3 |
|
Minimum |
0.9 |
3.8 |
-0.2 |
-7.3 |
-4.1 |
0.2 |
|
Difference |
34.6 |
22.6 |
16 |
9.1 |
28.3 |
26.1 |
(Hayek, 2009, Page 522)
Negative
Ages
Chronometry seems to fail in the case of HE 1219−0312, resulting in a negative age due to its high thorium abundance.
However, a significant complication is that the Th/Eu chronometer seems to fail in some r-process enhanced metalpoor stars, resulting in negative age estimate.
The case is different for HE 1219−0312, where almost all abundance pairs yield negative ages when compared to the rprocess residuals. We determine an average age of −2.6 Gyr with a standard deviation of 3.3 Gyr.
It is clear that the high Th abundance causes this shift towards low or even negative ages, and the significantly different results for the two stars, which were obtained using the same initial abundance ratios.
This leads to a failure of the commonly used Th/Eu chronometer, along with most other element pairs, by resulting in a negative radioactive decay age.
Assumptions/Problems
1
We also compare the observed pattern
with recent high-entropy wind (HEW) calculations, which assume core-collapse
supernovae of massive stars as the astrophysical environment for the r-process, and find good
agreement for most lanthanides.
2
The MARCS models assume 1D plane-parallel stratification or spherical symmetry, depending
on the surface gravity, as well as hydrostatic equilibrium and radiative transfer in local
thermodynamic equilibrium
(LTE), also including continuum scattering.
3
Energy conservation is fulfilled by assuming flux constancy for radiative and convective
transport.
4
Convergence is typically achieved after a few iterations when the
number of data points
assumed as true continuum remains constant.
5
Assuming the correction of +0.4 dex
for Mn I adopted by Cayrel leads to very good agreement between the Mn I and Mn II
abundances.
6
The contributions to the total
uncertainty, were then combined as the sum of squares, assuming their complete independence.
7
Assuming an incomplete ejection or fallback scenario, more
than 80 % of the synthesized Sr, Y and Zr nuclei failed to reach
the ISM in both cases.
8
The estimate for hafnium
is bracketed for the HEW model due to problems with the
nuclear data, rendering the synthetic yield unreliable. It is clear
that the high Th abundance causes this shift towards low or even
negative ages, and the significantly different results for the two
stars, which were obtained using the same initial abundance ratios.
9
Radioactive dating based on solar r-process residuals
results in an average age of 9.5 Gyr, and 17.6 Gyr for the HEW predictions. The Th/Eu pair seems to yield
a much younger age, caused by the low europium abundance. The large scatter in
decay ages found for different element pairs confirms that stellar chronometry
needs to be based on more than one abundance ratio.
This star was analysed in 2002 and found to
contain osmium, platinum, and (for
the first time in a metal-poor star) gold, elements whose abundances can
only be reliably determined using HST. (Cowan, 2002, Page 861) Five dates older
than the Big Bang were obtained.
Table 6
|
Dating |
Age |
Lower |
|
Method |
(Ga) |
Limit |
|
Th/Eu |
10 |
8.2 |
|
Th/Ir |
21.7 |
14.8 |
|
Th/Pt |
10.3 |
16.8 |
|
Th/U |
13.4 |
11 |
|
U/Ir |
15.5 |
13.5 |
|
U/Pt |
12.4 |
14.6 |
(Cowan, 2002, Page 876)
There seems to be
an endless set of unprovable assumptions in all calculations. We caution,
however, that all of these age estimates are very sensitive to uncertainties
both in the theoretically predicted initial values and in the observations
themselves; this is particularly true for our very weak detection of uranium.
In addition, further investigation of any possible real offset between the rare
earth elements and the third r-process peak elements and the corresponding
effect on nucleo cosmo
chronometry will be necessary. (Cowan,
2002, Page 876)
Assumptions/Problems
1
Furthermore, metallicity will be assumed here to be equivalent to the
stellar [Fe/H] value.
2
Remembering these caveats, adopting Fe/H = 2.1 in the T eff
calculations, and (for the moment) assuming no interstellar reddening, the observed
V-K = 2.06 yields T eff; 4985 and 5025 K.
3
These values and an assumption of T eff = 5200 K leads to log 1.8, in
excellent agreement with the spectroscopic value.
4
If we instead assume a temperature at the high end of the estimates, T
eff = 5600 K.
5
The primary N abundance indicator is NH, since the CN absorption even at
the 00 band head at 3883 A is no more than 10% of the continuum, and the N
abundance derived from CN depends directly on the assumed abundance of C.
6
To account for a few absorptions in the spectra that have no obvious
atomic and molecular identification, we arbitrarily assumed that they were Fe i lines with EP = 3.5 eV.
7
Therefore, for an individual synthesis we varied the absorptions of a
given molecule as a set by simply varying the assumed abundance of C, N, or O.
8
The [X/Fe] ratios were computed by assuming that Fe/H = -2:09 and
adopting the recommended solar abundances log of Grevesse
& Sauval.
There is an endless list of unprovable assumptions in the article.
1. In this model, the protoneutron star mass and the
(asymptotic) neutrino sphere radius are assumed to be 2.0Mo and 10
km, respectively. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 853)
2. The temperature and density histories of the material
involved in the neutron capture processes
are obtained with the assumption of a steady flow of the neutrino-powered
winds, with general relativistic effects taken
into account. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 853)
3. The mass-integrated r-process yields, obtained by
assuming a simple time evolution of the neutrino
luminosity, are compared to the available spectroscopic elemental abundance data of CS 31082-001. (Wanajo, 2002, Page
853)
4. In fact, the large dispersion of Eu/Fe observed in halo stars (more than 2 orders of magnitude) has been naturally explained by chemical evolution models that make such assumptions. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 854)
5. Thus far, the initial production of Th/r has been
determined
by fitting theoretical nucleosynthesis results to the solar r-process pattern, with the assumption that the r-pattern was universal in all astrophysical environments. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 854)
6. Therefore, any age estimates that demand assumption
of the universality of the r-process pattern may in fact be
unreliable. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 854)
7. In addition to the above nonuniversality problem, the
initial r-process pattern has thus far been determined theoretically by the superposition of nucleosynthesis results, where one is forced to assume constant temperatures, neutron number densities, and exposure times. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 854)
8. These approximations have
been necessary because of the lack of a reliable astrophysical
model for the r-process site. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 854)
9. The system is treated as
time stationary and spherically symmetric, and the radius of the neutron star is
assumed to be the
same as that of the neutrino sphere. (Wanajo, 2002, Page
855)
10. The neutrino luminosities,
L, of all neutrino flavors are assumed to be equal. (Wanajo, 2002, Page
855)
11. This assumption may be inadequate, as the physical conditions of the neutrino sphere and the outer boundary are not necessarily causally connected. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 855)
Table 7
|
Method |
Th/Eu |
Th/Os |
Th/Ir |
U/Eu |
U/Os |
U/Ir |
U/Th |
|
Age |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
|
|
18.77 |
57.52 |
27.18 |
15.63 |
27.95 |
18.3 |
14.16 |
|
|
12.61 |
46.73 |
16.09 |
13.62 |
24.47 |
14.73 |
14.1 |
|
|
5.17 |
34.01 |
3.64 |
11.32 |
20.49 |
10.83 |
14.19 |
|
|
-16.9 |
11.67 |
-17.55 |
3.97 |
13.05 |
3.76 |
13.7 |
|
|
-32.54 |
-0.84 |
-29.64 |
-1.12 |
8.96 |
-0.2 |
13.53 |
|
|
-118.21 |
-51.05 |
-76.97 |
-29.3 |
-7.94 |
-16.18 |
12.16 |
|
Average |
-21.85 |
16.34 |
-12.875 |
2.35 |
14.50 |
5.21 |
13.64 |
|
Maximum |
18.77 |
57.52 |
27.18 |
15.63 |
27.95 |
18.3 |
14.19 |
|
Minimum |
-118.21 |
-51.05 |
-76.97 |
-29.3 |
-7.94 |
-16.18 |
12.16 |
|
Difference |
136.98 |
108.57 |
104.15 |
44.93 |
35.89 |
34.48 |
2.03 |
Table 7 contains 14
negative dates [red] and 15 dates [blue] older than the Big Bang explosion and
a 175-billion-year age range. (Wanajo, 2002, Page 863) The data in table 8 is calculated from the age graph (Wanajo, 2002,
Page 863) by the same author.
Table 8
|
Method |
Th/Eu |
Th/Os |
Th/Ir |
U/Eu |
U/Os |
U/Ir |
U/Th |
|
Age |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
(Ga) |
|
|
-32.31 |
-1.23 |
-29.85 |
-29.23 |
-8.00 |
-16.31 |
13.54 |
|
|
-16.62 |
11.38 |
-17.23 |
-0.92 |
8.62 |
0.31 |
13.54 |
|
|
5.23 |
33.85 |
3.69 |
4.00 |
12.92 |
4.31 |
13.54 |
|
|
12.31 |
46.46 |
16.00 |
12.00 |
20.62 |
11.08 |
13.54 |
|
|
18.77 |
57.54 |
27.38 |
13.85 |
24.00 |
15.08 |
13.54 |
|
|
|
|
|
16.31 |
27.69 |
18.46 |
13.54 |
|
Average |
-2.52 |
29.60 |
0.00 |
2.67 |
14.31 |
5.49 |
13.54 |
|
Maximum |
18.77 |
57.54 |
27.38 |
16.31 |
27.69 |
18.46 |
13.54 |
|
Minimum |
-32.31 |
-1.23 |
-29.85 |
-29.23 |
-8.00 |
-16.31 |
13.54 |
|
Difference |
51.08 |
58.77 |
57.23 |
45.54 |
35.69 |
34.77 |
0 |
Table 8 contains 9 negative dates and 13 dates
older than the Big Bang explosion and a 90-billion-year age range. (Wanajo, 2002,
Page 863)
Roederers calculations are based on a long list of unproven assumptions
listed below. The dates obtained [Table 9] have an impossible 24.8-billion-year
range.
This explicitly assumes that the four r-process standard stars contain no amount of s-process material. (Roederer,
2009, page 1971)
These stellar ratios are
compared with our predictions, made using the classical waiting-point
assumptiondefined as an equilibrium condition between neutron captures and photo disintegrations. (Roederer, 2009, page 1973)
Although this approach makes the simplifying
assumptions of constant neutron number density and
temperature as well as instantaneous nuclear freezeout, the
equilibrium model calculations reproduce the S.S. abundances well. (Roederer, 2009,
page 1973)
Our approach can be considered reliable only if we achieve a consistent picturemeaning that the abundances are solarwith logical astrophysical assumptions for the three heaviest r-process observables. (Roederer, 2009,
page 1973)
The specific calculations employed here assume a
weighted
range of neutron number densities (from 1023
to 1030 cm−3). (Roederer, 2009, page 1973)
We also assume a
varying r-process path related to contour lines of constant
neutron separation energies in the range of 42 MeV. (Roederer, 2009, page 1973)
Assuming the stellar Pb abundances are not seriously in
error, we currently lack a complete, self-consistent understanding of r-process
nucleosynthesis and enrichment for all low
metallicity stars. (Roederer, 2009, page 1976)
The horizontal lines indicate the ratios expected if a sample of material had a given age, assuming
the nucleosynthesis predictions of Kratz. (Roederer, 2009, page 1977)
If we divide the sample into two groups of starsthose
with an actinide boost and those withoutand assume a single
age for each group, we can derive reasonable estimates for the age
of the r-process-only standard stars, as shown in
Table 9. (Roederer, 2009, page 1977)
Assuming that the observed stellar ratios are
independent (which they
clearly are not since all rely on Th), we
derive an age for the
ensemble of standard r-process-only
stars of 15.2 ±
2.1
(σ = 4.6) Gyr. (Roederer, 2009, page 1977)
Table 9
|
Method |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Difference |
|
Th/La |
20.4 |
6.4 |
14 |
|
Th/Eu |
10.6 |
-4.4 |
15 |
|
Th/Er |
13.2 |
1.5 |
11.7 |
|
Th/Hf |
19.7 |
3.4 |
16.3 |
|
Th/Ir |
11.7 |
-2.3 |
14 |
|
Th/Pb |
9.9 |
|
|
(Roederer, 2009, Page 1978)
Gorielys calculations are based on a long list of unproven
assumptions listed below. The dates obtained [Table 10] have an impossible 21-billion-year
range.
The canonical model
assumes that some stellar material
composed
solely of iron nuclei is subjected to neutron densities and temperatures that remain constant over the whole neutron irradiation time. (Goriely, 2001, Page 1114)
This is even more true if different types of r-process episodes have
to be considered, at least if the
assumption of the universality" of the r-process yields is not adopted from the start. (Goriely, 2001, Page 1115)
The long-lived 232Th/238U and 235U/238U
pairs have been classically used to estimate the age of
the r-nuclides (assumed to be roughly equal to the age of the
Galaxy) from the present meteoritic content of these
nuclides. (Goriely, 2001, Page 1117)
The major origin of the difficulty lies in the necessity
to make the assumption that the r-process is
universal. (Goriely, 2001, Page 1118)
In these conditions, the universality assumption would lead to quite odd chronometric conclusions. In particular, the
Th/Eu ratio in CS 31082-001 is about 3.2 times larger
than in CS 22892-052. Hence, under the universality assumption, CS 22892-052 predates CS 31082-001 by 24 Gy,
and would thus be about 36 Gy
old. (Goriely, 2001, Page 1118)
In these conditions, and if the universality of the
Pb/Th ratio is assumed, the observed Pb/Th values turn out to be discrepant by
a factor of about 10, at least if the two stars have roughly the same age. If
this is indeed the case (which is not a farfetched assumption in view of their
similar [Fe/H] ratio), either the universality assumption is invalid, and a
specific actinide-producing r-process has to be called
for, or the Pb in CS 22892-052 is largely of s-process origin. (Goriely, 2001,
Page 1118)
Even if the assumption of a universal r-process appears to be more and more fragile with time, we dare suppose in the following that it indeed holds in order to examine if constraints can be put in such a favorable situation on the nuclear and astrophysical models for use in r-process calculations, and consequently on the actinide production. (Goriely, 2001,
Page 1118)
This clearly contradicts the universality assumption
which is the basis of all the chronometric considerations
making use of metal-poor stars.
(Goriely,
2001, Page 1120)
Second, the constraints adopted to select the recommended
actinide productions and their ranges of variations given in
Tables 1 and 2, while admittedly highly subjective,
appear reasonable to the authors only under the assumption of
the universality of the r-process. At discussed above,
this basic assumption appears to be more and more questionable
as data accumulate. As a direct consequence, the derived
constraints are increasingly unsecure. (Goriely, 2001, Page 1120)
A single r-process production is assumed at time zero. (Goriely, 2001, Page 1121)
Seven Eu/U dates are over 16 billion years old. Six
Eu/Th dates are over 16 billion years old.
Table
10
|
Case |
U/Th |
U/Eu |
Case |
U/Th |
U/Eu |
|
Number |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Number |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
|
1 |
13.55 |
8.38 |
17 |
11.58 |
5.73 |
|
2 |
12.48 |
7.81 |
18 |
10.57 |
4.74 |
|
3 |
13.54 |
8.14 |
19 |
11.97 |
4.75 |
|
4 |
13.92 |
10.16 |
20 |
14.57 |
11.14 |
|
5 |
8.94 |
7.86 |
21 |
10.77 |
8.49 |
|
6 |
16.14 |
20.52 |
22 |
13.39 |
18.03 |
|
7 |
13.66 |
2.88 |
23 |
11.59 |
1.71 |
|
8 |
14.3 |
13.2 |
24 |
15.81 |
15.46 |
|
9 |
14.3 |
13.15 |
25 |
20.09 |
16.12 |
|
10 |
12.31 |
10.43 |
26 |
10.13 |
7.47 |
|
11 |
17.73 |
16.23 |
27 |
16.18 |
13.08 |
|
12 |
14.65 |
12.67 |
28 |
12.74 |
8.87 |
|
13 |
13.56 |
13.38 |
29 |
15.38 |
15.87 |
|
14 |
16.11 |
22.6 |
30 |
13.61 |
20.64 |
|
15 |
17.31 |
16.86 |
31 |
15.45 |
16.28 |
|
16 |
14.02 |
14.43 |
32 |
10.94 |
13.06 |
(Goriely, 2001, Page 1119)
Table 10 contains 27 dates older than the Big Bang
explosion and a 20-billion-year age range. Lowest age is 1.71 Ga and the oldest is 22.6 Ga.
Assumptions
A gravity of log g = 1.5 dex was assumed in
order to satisfy the ionization equilibrium
of iron and titanium. (Hill,
2002)
The fit was poor, but if the gf-values are correct, which is a bold assumption, the nitrogen abundance is at most log (N) = 5:02. (Hill, 2002)
The main
difference between the two codes lies in the continuous opacity computations
and the source function assumptions (a diffusive term is added in the latter). (Hill,
2002, page 570)
Assuming W = 0:3, Ho in the plausible range 65-75 km/sec
Mega pc, and a flat geometry,
the Big Bang occurred about 0.5 Gyr before the epoch z = 10, and 1 Gyr before z = 5.
(Hill, 2002, page 574)
A striking consequence
of these variations is the complete
failure
of the conventional Th/Eu chronometer in CS 31082-001, assuming an initial production ratio for the pair as in CS 22892-052, or as in the r-process
elements of the Solar System. (Hill,
2002, page 575)
Problems
It is difficult to conceive any reasonable
scenario that would account for this by an age difference: CS 22892-052 and
HD115444 would then be 20 and 18 Giga years older than CS 31082-001,
respectively (regardless of the adopted production ratio for Th/Eu), which
seems unrealistic. (Hill, 2002, Page
573)
Using the same
initial production ratio as in Cayrel, this leads to
an age of almost 17 Ga, 4.3 Ga greater than that originally published. By contrast, use of
the conventional Th/Eu chronometer leads instead to a slightly
negative (!), or at most a T-Tauri
like age for CS 31082-001. (Hill, 2002, Page 574)
Radioactive age determinations for halo stars have so far relied on the hypothesis that the r-process pattern in such stars matches the Solar pattern, as has been found in the few known r-process-enhanced extreme halo stars. (Hill, 2002, page 561)
Assumptions
In Figure 1a we have extrapolated the
scaled solar system r-process curve (dashed line) to the
thorium region, assuming the solar system abundance at
time of formation. (Cowan,
1997)
In this model we assume
that the number of r-process
atoms synthesized by supernovae, r is a constant
per unit gas mass per unit time. (Cowan, 1997)
Table
11
|
Source
|
Th/Eu |
Age(Ga) |
Error |
|
Solar
system: |
0.463 |
15.2 |
3.7 |
|
Theory
1: |
0.479 |
15.9 |
2 |
|
No
Fission |
0.499 |
16.7 |
2 |
|
Less
consistent |
0.502 |
16.8 |
2 |
|
Theory
2 |
0.427 |
13.5 |
2 |
(Cowan, 1997,
Page 248)
Several quotes from this article give absurd ages:
These Galactic chemical evolution models
suggest an age of 17 Ga for CS 22892-052. (Cowan, 1997, Page 246)
This function is
plotted in Figure 8 for disk ages, td, of 8, 10.5, and 15 Ga, and an
age for the solar material, t of 4.6 Ga; the implied age estimate, of 18.1 +/-
4 Ga, from the observed N(Th/Eu) in CS 22892-052 is indicated on the figure; if
the ratio of Th to all r-process elements is used an age of 16.3 Ga results. (Cowan, 1997, Page 252)
Age dependence of
the observed Th/r ratio (in units of the observed solar system value), based on
a simple model of chemical evolution and three different assumed ages for the
Galactic disk. Galactic disk ages of 8, 10.5, and 15 Ga are indicated. The
horizontal lines represent the observed Th/r ratio in CS 22892-052 with 1 p
uncertainty; the best-fit age is 18 Ga, with an acceptable range from 14 to 22 Ga.
(Cowan, 1997, Page 252)
In this circumstance the most likely age of
the CS 22892-052 material is 17-18 Ga. (Cowan,
1997, Page 253)
Our Galactic evolution models therefore suggest an age of 17 Gyr for CS 22892-052,
with an inferred disk age of 10.5 Gyr. (Cowan,
1997, Page 253)
Several quotes from this article admit that unprovable
assumptions underly his calculations:
These theoretical computations assume the classical
waiting point approximation of (n, c) ’ (c, n)
equilibrium. (Cowan, 1999, page 194)
We assume, as a working hypothesis, that the heavy element abundances of very low metallicity stars are given by a pure r-process composition. This assumption is supported by the observational evidence, at least for the elements beyond Ba, for which data are available. We have analyzed r-process abundances with predictions from calculations in the waiting-point assumption. (Cowan, 1999, page 196)
The major remaining question is related to the assumption
of an (n, c) ’ (c, n) equilibrium during the freeze-out
phase in realistic astrophysical sites and depends
on the temporal decline pattern of neutron density and
temperature below the above-mentioned limits. (Cowan, 1999, page 196)
However, the disadvantage is that these highly advanced and computationally expensive calculations still assume spherical symmetry for all nuclei.
(Cowan, 1999, page 198)
Applying them in Galactic evolution models, which include assumptions about the histories of star formation rates and r-process production
(Cowan, 1999, page 200)
The major remaining contamination of the Th II
feature is
due to Co I
(chiefly at 4019.3 Angstroms), and we altered the assumed Co abundance to match this absorption.
(Cowan, 1999, page 201)
One of the dates calculated is over 40 billion years old.
Table
12
|
Model |
90Th |
63Eu |
Th/Eu |
Age
(Ga) |
|
Solar |
0.042 |
0.09 |
0.463 |
13.8 |
|
FRDM |
0.0428 |
0.0242 |
1.7695 |
41.0 |
|
ETFSI-1 |
0.02949 |
0.06041 |
0.4881 |
14.9 |
|
HFB/SkP |
0.01991 |
0.05134 |
0.3879 |
10.2 |
|
FRDM-HFB |
0.03449 |
0.06958 |
0.4957 |
15.2 |
|
ETFSI-Q |
0.06292 |
0.11533 |
0.5456 |
17.1 |
|
ETFSI-Q(lsq) |
0.04222 |
0.08788 |
0.4804 |
14.5 |
(Cowan,
1999, Page 202)
This led to the exclusion of the mass models
of Hilf, FRDM, and ETFSI-1. FRDM is listed in Table
3, but the Eu abundance prediction is off by a factor of more than 3,
underlining the previous finding and therefore making the age prediction
meaningless. (Cowan, 1999, Page 203)
Several quotes from Johnsons article admit that unprovable
assumptions underly her calculations:
We obtain an average age of
11.4 Gyr, which depends critically on the assumption of an initial Th/Eu
production ratio of 0.496. If the universe is 15 Gyr
old, then the (Th/Eu) should be 0.590, in agreement with some theoretical models of
the r-process. (Johnson, 2001, page 888)
A
second significant source of uncertainty in the
Th-based
ages is the assumption that the r-process abundance
pattern for elements from Ba to Th is universal and that the abundance of elements such as Ba, Eu, Nd, and Sm
can be used to estimate the initial Th abundance in a star. (Johnson, 2001, page 888)
For the rest of our analysis, we assume
that the heavy-element abundances in our sample of stars
represent contributions from the r-process only. (Johnson, 2001, page 899)
We are assuming that the metal enrichment for
these metal-poor stars happened over a short period of
time, so we do not need to model Galactic chemical history). (Johnson, 2001, page 900)
Our mean age is based on the assumption of a universal r-process pattern. (Johnson, 2001, page 901)
If we assume that all the metal-poor stars for which we have measured Th are coeval, we can put a limit on the observed dispersion in the initial Th/Eu ratio. Table 7 gives this value assuming that all the stars are 12 Gyr old. (Johnson, 2001, page 901)
They found an average age of 14.5 Gyr, again
close to ages derived for the MSTO, assuming (Th/Eu) = 0.496 as in
this paper. (Johnson,
2001, page 888)
Table
13
|
Star |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
|
HD
186478 |
16.8 |
16.8 |
18.3 |
18.3 |
|
HD
115444 |
4.2 |
9.8 |
6.1 |
11.2 |
|
HD
108577 |
9.3 |
8.4 |
10.6 |
9.8 |
|
BD
82548 |
9.3 |
7.5 |
10.8 |
8.9 |
|
M92
VII-18 |
6.5 |
7.5 |
7.9 |
8.8 |
(Johnson,
2001, Page 900)
Table
14
|
Stars |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
|
Name |
Maximum |
Minimum |
Difference |
|
HD
186478 |
22.50 |
14.14 |
8.36 |
|
HD
115444 |
15.42 |
3.00 |
12.42 |
|
HD
108577 |
14.54 |
5.63 |
8.91 |
|
BD
82548 |
14.78 |
4.67 |
10.11 |
|
M92
VII-18 |
14.46 |
3.00 |
11.46 |
(Johnson,
2001, Page 901)
Snedens calculations are based on a long list of
unproven assumptions listed below.
Thorium is radioactive with a half-life of 14.0 Gyr, and the observed [Th/Eu]
abundance ratio combined with an assumed extrapolation
of the solar system r-process abundance distribution out to
Th yielded a simple decay age of about 15 Gyr. (Sneden, 2003,
page 937)
Assuming that CS 22892-052 began its life with a
Spite plateau Li abundance of log 2.0. (Sneden, 2003, page 942)
Both of these effects must be carefully accounted for in synthetic spectrum computations, and still the derived abundances from such deep and saturated absorption features are dependent on assumed values of microturbulent velocity. (Sneden, 2003,
page 945)
This distribution, indicated by the solid line, is
based on n-capture cross section measurements and assumes
the classical s-process empirical relation between
abundance and cross section. (Sneden, 2003,
page 946)
We proceed now on the assumption that the robustness in the heavy region continues through the actinides, so that we can utilize abundance data concerning the interesting actinide radioactivity 232 Th, 235 U, and 238 U to date the star. (Sneden, 2003, page 948)
These chronometric age estimates, however, depend sensitively on the predicted initial values of the radioactive elements, in ratio to each other, or to stable elements. To determine these initial ratio values, we have utilized the theoretical r-process predictions described in 4.2. (Sneden, 2003, page 948)
An average of the
chronometer pairs, assuming initial solar system ratios, gives an age of 14.7 Gyr, which is not
inconsistent with the average based on theoretically predicted
r-process
abundance ratios. (Sneden, 2003,
page 949)
Table
15
|
Dating |
Average |
Lower
Limit |
|
Method |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
|
Th/Eu |
12.8 |
13.2 |
|
Th/Ir |
19.2 |
13.1 |
|
Th/Pt |
10.5 |
17.7 |
|
Th/U |
10.4 |
|
(Sneden, 2003, Page 949)
While
the origin of r-process nuclei remains a long-standing mystery, recent
spectroscopic studies of extremely metal poor stars in the Galactic halo
strongly suggest that it is associated with core-collapse supernovae. (Wanajo, 2003, Page 968)
Table
16
|
Th/Eu |
U/Th |
Difference |
Th/Eu |
U/Th |
Difference |
|
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
|
-2.50 |
7.72 |
10.22 |
23.37 |
14.75 |
8.62 |
|
4.00 |
9.51 |
5.51 |
23.11 |
14.75 |
8.36 |
|
6.72 |
13.09 |
6.37 |
21.71 |
14.75 |
6.97 |
|
8.51 |
13.95 |
5.44 |
20.32 |
14.75 |
5.57 |
|
10.04 |
14.75 |
4.71 |
18.60 |
14.75 |
3.85 |
|
11.36 |
14.75 |
3.38 |
16.74 |
14.75 |
1.99 |
|
12.56 |
14.75 |
2.19 |
15.08 |
14.75 |
0.33 |
|
13.55 |
14.75 |
1.19 |
13.36 |
14.75 |
1.39 |
|
14.35 |
14.75 |
0.40 |
11.96 |
14.75 |
2.79 |
|
15.41 |
14.75 |
0.66 |
10.57 |
14.75 |
4.18 |
|
16.54 |
14.75 |
1.79 |
8.98 |
14.75 |
5.77 |
|
17.53 |
14.75 |
2.79 |
7.78 |
14.75 |
6.97 |
|
19.19 |
14.75 |
4.44 |
6.39 |
14.75 |
8.36 |
|
20.72 |
14.75 |
5.97 |
5.53 |
14.75 |
9.22 |
|
23.37 |
14.75 |
8.62 |
4.47 |
14.75 |
10.28 |
Table 16 contains 1 negative date and 41 dates older
than the Big Bang explosion and a 26-billion-year age range. (Wanajo, 2003,
Page 977)
The age Th/Eu is sensitive to the
parameter M, ranging from a negative age to 23.8 Gyr, which illustrates that caution must be
used in the application of this chronometer pair. (Wanajo, 2003, Page 977)
(Ludwig, 2010)
Table 17
|
Object |
Max |
Min |
Difference |
|
Name |
[Gyr] |
[Gyr] |
[Gyr] |
|
BD+173248 |
27.7 |
6.3 |
21.4 |
|
BD+82856 |
9.6 |
5.8 |
3.8 |
|
CS22892-052 |
27.7 |
11.7 |
16 |
|
CS31082-001 |
17.9 |
-1.5 |
19.4 |
|
HD108577 |
10.1 |
6.2 |
3.9 |
|
HD115444 |
30.1 |
8.1 |
22 |
|
HD186478 |
18.9 |
15.1 |
3.8 |
|
HD221170 |
27.1 |
10.4 |
16.7 |
|
HE1523-0901 |
17.4 |
9.5 |
7.9 |
|
M4-L1411 |
32.5 |
|
|
|
M4-L1501 |
25.5 |
|
|
|
M4-L1514 |
37.2 |
|
|
|
M4-L2406 |
32.5 |
|
|
|
M4-L2617 |
23.2 |
|
|
|
M4-L3209 |
30.2 |
|
|
|
M4-L3413 |
23.2 |
|
|
|
M4-L4511 |
37.2 |
|
|
|
M51-K341 |
13.9 |
9.7 |
4.2 |
|
M51-K462 |
16.9 |
12.7 |
4.2 |
|
M51-K583 |
8.5 |
6.6 |
1.9 |
|
M5-IV-81 |
18.5 |
|
|
|
M5-IV-82 |
18.5 |
|
|
|
M92-VII-18 |
9.1 |
5.3 |
3.8 |
|
Sun |
22.3 |
1.7 |
20.6 |
(Ludwig, 2010, Page 5)
Table 17 contains
36 dates older than the Big Bang explosion and a 39-billion-year age range.
Figure
1.
Figure 1. Ages and spectroscopic age
uncertainties for star CS 22892-052 determined from various chronometer pairs (symbols) assuming up to four different production ratios. Filled
symbols refer to the production rations of Kratz. The dashed line indicates the age of the universe. Sneden give a
radio
chronometric age estimate of 14.2 ± 3 Gyr for this star. (Ludwig,
2010, Page 5)
The Th/Hf
age, 22.3 Gyr, comes out to be greater than the age
of the
universe, 13.73 Gyr, as estimated from the
fluctuations of the
Cosmic Microwave Background. (Ludwig, 2010,
Page 6)
(Maxted,
2015)
Table 18
|
Stars |
Isochrone |
Gyrochronology |
Tidal Age |
Tidal Age |
|
Name |
Age (Gyr) |
Age (Gyr) |
109 Years |
1012 Years |
|
55-Cnc |
10.91 |
8.1 |
6,310 |
6.310 |
|
CoRoT-2 |
2.66 |
0.17 |
20 |
0.020 |
|
CoRoT-4 |
2.1 |
1.81 |
199,526 |
200 |
|
CoRoT-6 |
3.4 |
0.35 |
10,000 |
10 |
|
CoRoT-7 |
2.92 |
2.8 |
12,589 |
12.589 |
|
CoRoT-13 |
5.99 |
2.34 |
794 |
0.794 |
|
CoRoT-18 |
10.69 |
0.22 |
16 |
0.016 |
|
HAT-P-11 |
0.72 |
3.89 |
5,011,872 |
5,012 |
|
HAT-P-21 |
9.52 |
1.64 |
126 |
0.126 |
|
HATS-2 |
9.7 |
3.1 |
32 |
0.032 |
|
HD-189733 |
4.75 |
0.71 |
794 |
0.794 |
|
HD-209458 |
2.42 |
1.83 |
3,162 |
3.162 |
|
Kepler-17 |
1.48 |
1.43 |
20 |
0.020 |
|
Kepler-30 |
4.38 |
1.47 |
10,000,000,000 |
10,000,000 |
|
Kepler-63 |
3.16 |
0.23 |
6,309,573 |
6,310 |
|
Qatar-2 |
15.72 |
0.64 |
16 |
0.016 |
|
WASP-4 |
6.27 |
2.72 |
40 |
0.040 |
|
WASP-5 |
5.84 |
2.13 |
32 |
0.032 |
|
WASP-10 |
6 |
0.66 |
398 |
0.398 |
|
WASP-19 |
9.95 |
0.89 |
3 |
0.003 |
|
WASP-41 |
8.25 |
1.71 |
1,995 |
2 |
|
WASP-46 |
10.03 |
1.23 |
20 |
0.020 |
|
WASP-50 |
8.57 |
1.3 |
158 |
0.158 |
|
WASP-69 |
15.2 |
2.09 |
79,433 |
79.433 |
|
WASP-77 |
7.57 |
1.35 |
20 |
0.020 |
|
WASP-84 |
1.89 |
0.99 |
501,187 |
501 |
|
WASP-85 |
2.09 |
1.5 |
1,000 |
1.000 |
|
WASP-89 |
12.07 |
1.88 |
79 |
0.079 |
Table 18 contains 28
dates [blue] older than the Big Bang explosion and a ten million trillion-year
age range. Purple squares are twelve dates > one trillion years old.
(Mello, 2014)
Table 19
|
Dating |
CS
31082-001 |
CS
30315-029 |
Dating |
CS
31082-001 |
CS
30315-029 |
|
Method |
Age
(Gyr) |
Age
(Gyr) |
Method |
Age
(Gyr) |
Age
(Gyr) |
|
Th/La |
-11.21 |
-10.01 |
Th/Gd |
-1.87 |
-9.81 |
|
|
16.35 |
17.55 |
|
55.57 |
47.63 |
|
|
22.42 |
23.62 |
|
18.68 |
10.74 |
|
Range |
33.63 |
33.63 |
Range |
57.44 |
57.44 |
|
Th/Ce |
-4.67 |
0.25 |
Th/Tb |
-7.01 |
-3.27 |
|
|
35.03 |
39.94 |
|
32.69 |
36.43 |
|
|
20.55 |
25.47 |
|
21.02 |
24.75 |
|
Range |
39.70 |
39.70 |
Range |
39.70 |
39.70 |
|
Th/Pr |
-5.14 |
1.03 |
Th/Dy |
0.93 |
-2.8 |
|
|
36.89 |
43.06 |
|
39.23 |
35.49 |
|
|
20.55 |
26.71 |
|
36.43 |
32.69 |
|
Range |
50.03 |
42.03 |
Range |
38.30 |
38.30 |
|
Th/Nd |
-3.74 |
-0.86 |
Th/Er |
0 |
0.93 |
|
|
26.62 |
29.5 |
|
30.82 |
31.76 |
|
|
7.01 |
9.88 |
|
18.68 |
19.61 |
|
Range |
30.35 |
30.35 |
Range |
30.82 |
30.83 |
|
Th/Sm |
-1.87 |
4.2 |
Th/Tm |
-2.34 |
-6.77 |
|
|
26.62 |
32.69 |
|
22.42 |
17.98 |
|
|
13.54 |
19.61 |
|
12.61 |
8.17 |
|
Range |
28.49 |
28.49 |
Range |
24.76 |
24.76 |
|
Th/Eu |
-2.8 |
-5.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
-1.4 |
-3.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
-3.27 |
-5.79 |
|
|
|
|
|
14.48 |
11.96 |
|
|
|
|
|
-5.14 |
-7.66 |
|
|
|
|
|
35.03 |
32.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
15.41 |
12.89 |
|
|
|
|
Range |
40.17 |
39.17 |
|
|
|
Negative dates [Red] and dates [Blue] older
than the Big Bang. Table 19 contains 22 negative dates and 38 dates older than
the Big Bang explosion and a 67-billion-year age range.
There
are 29 dates over20 billion years old.
(Rocha-Pinto, 2002)
Table 20
|
Chromosphere |
Isochrone |
Age |
Age |
|
Age
(Ga) |
Age
(Ga) |
Difference |
Ratio |
|
0.28 |
1.3 |
1.02 |
4.64 |
|
0.50 |
1.8 |
1.30 |
3.60 |
|
2.07 |
2.0 |
0.07 |
0.97 |
|
0.38 |
2.3 |
1.92 |
6.05 |
|
4.70 |
2.6 |
2.10 |
1.81 |
|
6.43 |
7.4 |
0.97 |
1.15 |
|
1.14 |
8.5 |
7.36 |
7.46 |
|
0.49 |
8.7 |
8.21 |
17.76 |
|
2.53 |
10 |
7.47 |
3.95 |
|
5.39 |
13 |
7.61 |
2.41 |
|
4.16 |
13.8 |
9.64 |
3.32 |
|
7.91 |
18 |
10.09 |
2.28 |
|
3.92 |
18.9 |
14.98 |
4.82 |
Table 20 contains 3 dates older than the Big
Bang explosion and an 18-billion-year age range.
A radio
pulsars characteristic age τ (seconds) is usually
defined as:
Where P is the pulsars period, and the dot represents
the period
derivative (the rate the pulsar is slowing).
10 dates
over one trillion years old. Maximum age of 19,000 trillion years. Forty dates
are negative, and 36 dates are over 20 billion years old. Thirty
one dates are over 100 billion years old.
Table 21
|
Cluster |
Max |
Min |
Difference |
|
47 Tucanae |
2,037,213 |
-2,779,496 |
4,816,709 |
|
M13 |
22,516 |
-55,898,896 |
55,921,412 |
|
M92 |
818,942 |
|
|
|
NGC 6342 |
1,000,506,531 |
|
|
|
M14 |
328,491 |
|
|
|
Terzan 5 |
21,944,555 |
-6,317,512 |
28,262,067 |
|
NGC 6440 |
1,145,077,656 |
|
|
|
NGC 6517 |
24,834 |
-147,601 |
172,435 |
|
NGC 6522 |
281,287 |
|
|
|
NGC 6544 |
|
-11,182 |
11,182 |
|
NGC 6624 |
19,042,830,625 |
-53,617 |
19,042,884,242 |
|
M28 |
1,288,101,892 |
|
|
|
M22 |
22,928 |
-107 |
23,034 |
|
NGC 6712 |
|
-14,312,897 |
|
|
NGC 6752 |
|
-16,576 |
|
|
NGC 6760 |
-8,713,068 |
-42,654,701 |
33,941,633 |
|
M71 |
1,596,719 |
|
|
|
M15 |
223,117 |
|
|
Dates
= 106 years. (Freire, 2021)
Table 22
|
Pulsar |
Age (Ga) |
Pulsar |
Age (Ga) |
|
H |
-31,379 |
L |
-565 |
|
D |
-25,484 |
T |
408 |
|
J |
-3,401 |
E |
569 |
|
N |
-2,213 |
F |
644 |
|
C |
-1,830 |
U |
722 |
|
M |
-1,520 |
O |
1,381 |
|
G |
-1,519 |
Q |
1,873 |
(Freire,
2001)
40 dates over 20
billion years old.
34 dates with
future ages.
2 trillion-year age range.
Table 23
|
Pulsar |
Age 1 |
Age 2 |
Pulsar |
Age 1 |
Age 2 |
|
ID |
Myr. |
Myr. |
ID |
Myr. |
Myr. |
|
B0021-72C |
. |
-1,750 |
J1641+8049 |
3,580 |
-2,420 |
|
B0021-72D |
. |
-17,600 |
J1653-0158 |
13,000 |
39,000 |
|
B0021-72G |
. |
-1,470 |
J1658+3630 |
4,520 |
14,600 |
|
B0021-72H |
. |
-16,600 |
J1709+2313 |
20,200 |
68,400 |
|
B0021-72I |
. |
-1,170 |
J1710+4923 |
2,800 |
208,000 |
|
B0021-72J |
. |
-3,090 |
J1721-2457 |
10,000 |
-31,700 |
|
B0021-72L |
. |
-559 |
J1745+1017 |
15,400 |
18,700 |
|
B0021-72M |
. |
-1,470 |
J1757-2745 |
. |
-258 |
|
B0021-72N |
. |
-2,060 |
J1801-1417 |
10,800 |
14,200 |
|
B2127+11A |
. |
-83 |
J1801-3210 |
1,640,000 |
-34,000 |
|
J0024-7204S |
. |
-369 |
J1804-2858 |
. |
-4,250 |
|
J0024-7204W |
. |
-425 |
J1813-2621 |
5,630 |
-12,100 |
|
J0024-7204Y |
. |
-968 |
J1821+0155 |
18,500 |
. |
|
J0024-7204Z |
. |
-13,300 |
J1832-0836 |
5,210 |
-219,000 |
|
J0154+1833 |
12,800 |
31,400 |
J1836-2354A |
22,900 |
. |
|
J0509+0856 |
14,600 |
16,000 |
J1843-1448 |
14,000 |
-15,700 |
|
J0514-4002A |
113,000 |
-24,000 |
J1904+0451 |
16,900 |
. |
|
J0610-2100 |
4,950 |
51,000 |
J1905+0400 |
12,200 |
14,100 |
|
J0645+5158 |
28,500 |
41,500 |
J1906+0454 |
11,100 |
-18,100 |
|
J0931-1902 |
20,200 |
28,200 |
J1909-3744 |
3,330 |
16,500 |
|
J1017-7156 |
16,700 |
17,900 |
J1910-5959A |
17,600 |
24,100 |
|
J1024-0719 |
4,410 |
-2,270 |
J1910-5959C |
38,700 |
393,000 |
|
J1101-6424 |
45,000 |
. |
J1933-6211 |
14,500 |
18,400 |
|
J1103-5403 |
14,600 |
. |
J1938+2012 |
55,600 |
. |
|
J1125+7819 |
9,570 |
-201,000 |
J1938+6604 |
18,100 |
. |
|
J1142+0119 |
5,360 |
-286 |
J1946+3417 |
16,100 |
-84,300 |
|
J1207-5050 |
12,700 |
14,400 |
J1955+6708 |
10,800 |
240,000 |
|
J1216-6410 |
34,700 |
. |
J2010+3051 |
15,700 |
-20,000 |
|
J1327-0755 |
23,900 |
-27 |
J2010-1323 |
17,200 |
21,200 |
|
J1400-1431 |
6,760 |
155,000 |
J2017-1614 |
15,000 |
. |
|
J1405-4656 |
4,320 |
-125,000 |
J2019+2425 |
8,880 |
47,200 |
|
J1417-4402 |
. |
-30,800 |
J2034+3632 |
33,600 |
. |
|
J1421-4409 |
8,180 |
16,900 |
J2055+3829 |
33,100 |
196,000 |
|
J1518+4904 |
23,900 |
32,200 |
J2129-0429 |
. |
-13,900 |
|
J1603-7202 |
15,000 |
16,200 |
J2222-0137 |
8,960 |
35,400 |
|
J1618-4624 |
30,300 |
. |
J2229+2643 |
31,100 |
45,100 |
|
J1622-0315 |
5,250 |
-10,300 |
J2317+1439 |
22,500 |
25,200 |
|
J1640+2224 |
17,800 |
39,400 |
J2322+2057 |
7,890 |
26,500 |
|
J1641+3627C |
47,800 |
. |
J2322-2650 |
94,100 |
125,000 |
(CSIRO, 2021)
Table 24
|
Pulsar |
τc(Ga) |
τci(Ga) |
τ(Ga) |
τi(Ga) |
τc/τ |
Max |
Min |
Diff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J0034−0534 |
6 |
55.71 |
4.29 |
39.9 |
0.15 |
55.71 |
4.29 |
51.42 |
|
J1709+2313 |
20.21 |
49.45 |
19.27 |
47.15 |
0.43 |
49.45 |
19.27 |
30.18 |
|
J1730−2304 |
6.37 |
42.92 |
6.24 |
42.27 |
0.15 |
42.92 |
6.24 |
36.68 |
|
J2317+1439 |
22.55 |
36.18 |
20.65 |
33.13 |
0.68 |
36.18 |
20.65 |
15.53 |
|
J1905+0400 |
12.34 |
33.12 |
11.47 |
30.81 |
0.4 |
33.12 |
11.47 |
21.65 |
|
J1640+2224 |
17.71 |
30.59 |
15.94 |
27.53 |
0.64 |
30.59 |
15.94 |
14.65 |
|
J1518+4904 |
23.84 |
29.34 |
23.74 |
29.23 |
0.82 |
29.34 |
23.74 |
5.6 |
|
J2019+2425 |
8.88 |
24.34 |
8.31 |
22.77 |
0.39 |
24.34 |
8.31 |
16.03 |
|
J2322+2057 |
7.85 |
18.49 |
7.51 |
17.69 |
0.44 |
18.49 |
7.51 |
10.98 |
|
J1629−6902 |
9.51 |
18.16 |
9.24 |
17.66 |
0.54 |
18.16 |
9.24 |
8.92 |
|
J1603−7202 |
14.98 |
17.94 |
14.85 |
17.81 |
0.84 |
17.94 |
14.85 |
3.09 |
|
J0610−2100 |
4.93 |
17.92 |
4.6 |
16.72 |
0.3 |
17.92 |
4.6 |
13.32 |
|
J2010−1323 |
17.17 |
1.5 |
16.54 |
1.800 |
0.1 |
17.17 |
1.5 |
15.67 |
|
J1909−3744 |
3.34 |
17.08 |
2.95 |
15.12 |
0.22 |
17.08 |
2.95 |
14.13 |
|
J1125−6014 |
10.39 |
16.37 |
8.89 |
14.00 |
0.74 |
16.37 |
8.89 |
7.48 |
|
J1721−2457 |
9.39 |
15.93 |
8.62 |
14.62 |
0.64 |
15.93 |
8.62 |
7.31 |
|
J2033+17 |
8.57 |
14.86 |
8.33 |
14.44 |
0.59 |
14.86 |
8.33 |
6.53 |
|
B1257+12 |
0.86 |
14.58 |
0.75 |
14.21 |
0.06 |
14.58 |
0.75 |
13.83 |
(Kiziltan, 2010)
339,600
trillion-year age range.
Table 25
|
No. |
106 Years |
109 Years |
1012 Years |
No. |
106 Years |
109 Years |
1012 Years |
|
1 |
13,273.03 |
13.27 |
0.01 |
24 |
15,957,689.28 |
15,957.69 |
15.96 |
|
2 |
20,652.38 |
20.65 |
0.02 |
25 |
14,824,156.95 |
14,824.16 |
14.82 |
|
3 |
25,291.23 |
25.29 |
0.03 |
26 |
22,231,563.37 |
22,231.56 |
22.23 |
|
4 |
30,972.05 |
30.97 |
0.03 |
27 |
20,275,426.77 |
20,275.43 |
20.28 |
|
5 |
31,547.87 |
31.55 |
0.03 |
28 |
35,234,653.45 |
35,234.65 |
35.23 |
|
6 |
91,826.92 |
91.83 |
0.09 |
29 |
49,087,397.15 |
49,087.40 |
49.09 |
|
7 |
135,197.92 |
135.20 |
0.14 |
30 |
64,709,792.07 |
64,709.79 |
64.71 |
|
8 |
142,879.53 |
142.88 |
0.14 |
31 |
935,341,070.18 |
935,341.07 |
935.34 |
|
9 |
214,274.26 |
214.27 |
0.21 |
32 |
1,686,436,543.29 |
1,686,436.54 |
1,686.44 |
|
10 |
239,315.05 |
239.32 |
0.24 |
33 |
3,723,659,869.53 |
3,723,659.87 |
3,723.66 |
|
11 |
248,296.16 |
248.30 |
0.25 |
34 |
7,498,424,177.51 |
7,498,424.18 |
7,498.42 |
|
12 |
298,517.64 |
298.52 |
0.30 |
35 |
11,667,290,311.41 |
11,667,290.31 |
11,667.29 |
|
13 |
439,511.26 |
439.51 |
0.44 |
36 |
14,824,156,947.62 |
14,824,156.95 |
14,824.16 |
|
14 |
635,287.05 |
635.29 |
0.64 |
37 |
16,556,556,074.13 |
16,556,556.07 |
16,556.56 |
|
15 |
1,303,076.77 |
1,303.08 |
1.30 |
38 |
25,761,432,229.09 |
25,761,432.23 |
25,761.43 |
|
16 |
1,566,642.86 |
1,566.64 |
1.57 |
39 |
33,340,338,460.68 |
33,340,338.46 |
33,340.34 |
|
17 |
1,749,725.84 |
1,749.73 |
1.75 |
40 |
30,406,750,063.94 |
30,406,750.06 |
30,406.75 |
|
18 |
1,883,518.99 |
1,883.52 |
1.88 |
41 |
74,984,241,775.12 |
74,984,241.78 |
74,984.24 |
|
19 |
2,437,642.45 |
2,437.64 |
2.44 |
42 |
80,717,927,841.32 |
80,717,927.84 |
80,717.93 |
|
20 |
2,930,690.82 |
2,930.69 |
2.93 |
43 |
102,558,108,941.28 |
102,558,108.94 |
102,558.11 |
|
21 |
3,213,438.59 |
3,213.44 |
3.21 |
44 |
159,576,892,755.04 |
159,576,892.76 |
159,576.89 |
|
22 |
4,908,739.72 |
4,908.74 |
4.91 |
45 |
339,601,816,308.59 |
339,601,816.31 |
339,601.82 |
|
23 |
12,105,145.23 |
12,105.15 |
12.11 |
|
|
|
|
(Albrecht,
2012)
56
dates over 14-billion years old.
Table
26
|
Id |
Best Age |
Min. Age |
Max. Age |
Id |
Best Age |
Min. Age |
Max. Age |
|
Num. |
Ga. |
Ga. |
Ga. |
Num. |
Ga. |
Ga. |
Ga. |
|
1644 |
15 |
8.8 |
20 |
592 |
14.6 |
6 |
20 |
|
1604 |
15 |
7.7 |
20 |
557 |
14.6 |
7.9 |
20 |
|
1530 |
15 |
7.2 |
20 |
543 |
14.6 |
5.1 |
20 |
|
1464 |
15 |
5.8 |
20 |
304 |
14.6 |
5.6 |
20 |
|
1233 |
15 |
6.1 |
20 |
1314 |
14.5 |
6.1 |
20 |
|
1046 |
15 |
7.9 |
20 |
1097 |
14.5 |
9.4 |
20 |
|
1044 |
15 |
7.9 |
20 |
1081 |
14.5 |
7.9 |
20 |
|
674 |
15 |
9.1 |
20 |
980 |
14.5 |
5.9 |
20 |
|
613 |
15 |
9.3 |
20 |
937 |
14.5 |
8 |
20 |
|
610 |
15 |
5.6 |
20 |
757 |
14.5 |
4.9 |
20 |
|
425 |
15 |
7.7 |
20 |
665 |
14.5 |
6.5 |
20 |
|
1515 |
14.8 |
10 |
20 |
387 |
14.5 |
8.1 |
20 |
|
1194 |
14.8 |
8.4 |
20 |
225 |
14.5 |
5.5 |
20 |
|
1047 |
14.8 |
7.7 |
20 |
73 |
14.5 |
9.1 |
20 |
|
966 |
14.8 |
8.7 |
20 |
1625 |
14.3 |
6.5 |
20 |
|
745 |
14.8 |
8.3 |
20 |
876 |
14.3 |
7.7 |
20 |
|
662 |
14.8 |
6.2 |
20 |
850 |
14.3 |
8.3 |
20 |
|
569 |
14.8 |
6 |
20 |
624 |
14.3 |
7.8 |
20 |
|
460 |
14.8 |
6.5 |
20 |
552 |
14.3 |
4.8 |
20 |
|
424 |
14.8 |
6.1 |
20 |
515 |
14.3 |
8 |
20 |
|
290 |
14.8 |
7.6 |
20 |
437 |
14.3 |
7.3 |
20 |
|
118 |
14.8 |
7.9 |
20 |
278 |
14.3 |
8.7 |
20 |
|
1640 |
14.6 |
5.8 |
20 |
193 |
14.3 |
8.3 |
20 |
|
1487 |
14.6 |
6.8 |
20 |
47 |
14.3 |
7.7 |
20 |
|
1101 |
14.6 |
7.6 |
20 |
1620 |
14.1 |
8.6 |
20 |
|
1058 |
14.6 |
5.8 |
20 |
1467 |
14.1 |
5.6 |
20 |
|
1033 |
14.6 |
8.3 |
20 |
1411 |
14.1 |
5.8 |
20 |
|
741 |
14.6 |
8.6 |
20 |
1309 |
14.1 |
6 |
20 |
(Li,
2008)
145 dates over 14 billion years old.
Table
27
|
Age (Ga) |
Age (Ga) |
Age (Ga) |
Age (Ga) |
Age (Ga) |
|
19 |
19 |
17.5 |
16 |
15.1 |
|
19 |
18.9 |
17.5 |
16 |
15.1 |
|
19 |
18.9 |
17.3 |
15.9 |
15.1 |
|
19 |
18.9 |
17.2 |
15.9 |
15.1 |
|
19 |
18.9 |
17.2 |
15.8 |
15 |
|
19 |
18.8 |
17.2 |
15.8 |
15 |
|
19 |
18.6 |
17.1 |
15.8 |
15 |
|
19 |
18.5 |
17.1 |
15.8 |
15 |
|
19 |
18.5 |
17 |
15.7 |
15 |
|
19 |
18.5 |
16.9 |
15.6 |
14.9 |
|
19 |
18.5 |
16.9 |
15.6 |
14.9 |
|
19 |
18.5 |
16.9 |
15.6 |
14.9 |
|
19 |
18.5 |
16.9 |
15.6 |
14.9 |
|
19 |
18.4 |
16.9 |
15.6 |
14.9 |
|
19 |
18.4 |
16.8 |
15.5 |
14.9 |
|
19 |
18.4 |
16.7 |
15.5 |
14.8 |
|
19 |
18.4 |
16.6 |
15.5 |
14.8 |
|
19 |
18.3 |
16.5 |
15.4 |
14.8 |
|
19 |
18.3 |
16.5 |
15.4 |
14.8 |
|
19 |
18.3 |
16.3 |
15.4 |
14.8 |
|
19 |
18.2 |
16.3 |
15.4 |
14.7 |
|
19 |
18.2 |
16.3 |
15.3 |
14.7 |
|
19 |
18 |
16.2 |
15.3 |
14.7 |
|
19 |
18 |
16.2 |
15.3 |
14.7 |
|
19 |
18 |
16.2 |
15.2 |
14.6 |
|
19 |
18 |
16.1 |
15.2 |
14.6 |
|
19 |
17.7 |
16.1 |
15.2 |
14.6 |
|
19 |
17.6 |
16.1 |
15.2 |
14.6 |
|
19 |
17.5 |
16.1 |
15.1 |
14.6 |
(Stanford,
2006)
BO-7 Ages, 52 dates over 14 billion years old. Maximum age of 199
billion years.
M-08 Ages, 32 dates over 14 billion years old. Maximum age of 40.6
billion years.
M-09 Ages, 100 dates over 14 billion years old. Maximum age of 90
billion years.
194-billion-year age range.
|
Quantity |
Billion Years |
|
153 |
>15 |
|
62 |
>20 |
|
22 |
>30 |
|
11 |
>40 |
|
9 |
>50 |
Table
28
|
Star |
M-08 |
M-09 |
Max |
Min |
Diff. |
Star |
M-08 |
M-09 |
Max |
Min |
Diff. |
||
|
Id. |
Age |
Age |
Age |
Age |
Age |
Age |
Id. |
Age |
Age |
Age |
Age |
Age |
Age |
|
6,311,645 |
199,066 |
|
|
199,066 |
199,066 |
0 |
8,172,471 |
7,127 |
|
19,491 |
19,491 |
7,127 |
12,364 |
|
3,545,061 |
80,737 |
|
|
80,737 |
80,737 |
0 |
9,521,504 |
12,588 |
12,096 |
19,336 |
19,336 |
12,096 |
7,240 |
|
8,008,720 |
72,652 |
|
|
72,652 |
72,652 |
0 |
10,355,814 |
7,542 |
|
19,011 |
19,011 |
7,542 |
11,469 |
|
9,958,706 |
68,922 |
|
|
68,922 |
68,922 |
0 |
3,634,449 |
8,513 |
11,014 |
18,497 |
18,497 |
8,513 |
9,984 |
|
3,116,607 |
37,024 |
|
|
37,024 |
37,024 |
0 |
10,594,280 |
10,343 |
10,862 |
18,162 |
18,162 |
10,343 |
7,819 |
|
10,288,529 |
36,025 |
|
|
36,025 |
36,025 |
0 |
3,216,636 |
12,229 |
11,630 |
18,121 |
18,121 |
11,630 |
6,491 |
|
6,033,541 |
35,371 |
|
|
35,371 |
35,371 |
0 |
5,179,744 |
13,844 |
12,863 |
17,902 |
17,902 |
12,863 |
5,039 |
|
10,131,454 |
30,368 |
|
|
30,368 |
30,368 |
0 |
7,954,835 |
9,280 |
10,418 |
17,589 |
17,589 |
9,280 |
8,309 |
|
11,869,707 |
27,049 |
|
|
27,049 |
27,049 |
0 |
8,743,107 |
6,020 |
|
17,533 |
17,533 |
6,020 |
11,513 |
|
4,265,252 |
26,920 |
|
|
26,920 |
26,920 |
0 |
7,115,878 |
8,219 |
10,426 |
17,505 |
17,505 |
8,219 |
9,286 |
|
3,232,231 |
25,445 |
|
|
25,445 |
25,445 |
0 |
9,452,762 |
6,718 |
|
17,250 |
17,250 |
6,718 |
10,532 |
|
7,026,163 |
25,421 |
|
|
25,421 |
25,421 |
0 |
9,009,059 |
7,797 |
10,302 |
17,144 |
17,144 |
7,797 |
9,347 |
|
11,512,820 |
25,387 |
|
|
25,387 |
25,387 |
0 |
6,203,696 |
5,651 |
|
17,119 |
17,119 |
5,651 |
11,468 |
|
9,047,316 |
24,829 |
|
|
24,829 |
24,829 |
0 |
6,423,596 |
6,186 |
|
17,031 |
17,031 |
6,186 |
10,845 |
|
4,477,987 |
23,371 |
|
|
23,371 |
23,371 |
0 |
11,751,603 |
14,824 |
14,845 |
16,965 |
16,965 |
14,824 |
2,141 |
|
11,234,847 |
23,000 |
|
|
23,000 |
23,000 |
0 |
9,839,974 |
7,037 |
10,503 |
16,863 |
16,863 |
7,037 |
9,826 |
|
8,196,354 |
22,375 |
|
|
22,375 |
22,375 |
0 |
9,142,393 |
12,291 |
11,506 |
16,858 |
16,858 |
11,506 |
5,352 |
|
6,949,355 |
21,269 |
|
|
21,269 |
21,269 |
0 |
8,409,813 |
14,274 |
13,845 |
16,831 |
16,831 |
13,845 |
2,986 |
|
8,151,196 |
17,448 |
|
|
17,448 |
17,448 |
0 |
11,497,597 |
11,636 |
11,028 |
16,772 |
16,772 |
11,028 |
5,744 |
|
6,611,426 |
17,120 |
|
|
17,120 |
17,120 |
0 |
12,206,862 |
12,632 |
11,794 |
16,737 |
16,737 |
11,794 |
4,943 |
|
10,140,449 |
16,431 |
|
|
16,431 |
16,431 |
0 |
9,385,944 |
14,390 |
14,460 |
16,460 |
16,460 |
14,390 |
2,070 |
|
9,001,931 |
33,347 |
|
89,962 |
89,962 |
33,347 |
56,615 |
11,245,201 |
12,228 |
11,443 |
16,448 |
16,448 |
11,443 |
5,005 |
|
9,282,684 |
31,138 |
|
88,300 |
88,300 |
31,138 |
57,162 |
3,649,521 |
12,473 |
11,698 |
16,076 |
16,076 |
11,698 |
4,378 |
|
3,853,405 |
42,553 |
40,674 |
77,005 |
77,005 |
40,674 |
36,331 |
4,757,567 |
6,406 |
|
16,039 |
16,039 |
6,406 |
9,633 |
|
11,916,978 |
17,927 |
|
55,024 |
55,024 |
17,927 |
37,097 |
10,087,390 |
5,831 |
|
15,920 |
15,920 |
5,831 |
10,089 |
|
7,895,129 |
25,855 |
28,961 |
53,458 |
53,458 |
25,855 |
27,603 |
4,357,396 |
12,422 |
11,675 |
15,877 |
15,877 |
11,675 |
4,202 |
|
7,336,648 |
19,137 |
21,704 |
39,106 |
39,106 |
19,137 |
19,969 |
6,192,408 |
10,564 |
10,156 |
15,589 |
15,589 |
10,156 |
5,433 |
|
3,447,674 |
15,049 |
19,980 |
34,645 |
34,645 |
15,049 |
19,596 |
6,289,713 |
5,104 |
|
15,586 |
15,586 |
5,104 |
10,482 |
|
8,870,709 |
19,034 |
18,814 |
32,893 |
32,893 |
18,814 |
14,079 |
7,428,087 |
12,027 |
11,305 |
15,571 |
15,571 |
11,305 |
4,266 |
|
6,263,848 |
15,609 |
17,613 |
31,199 |
31,199 |
15,609 |
15,590 |
7,802,832 |
9,452 |
9,613 |
15,568 |
15,568 |
9,452 |
6,116 |
|
12,251,466 |
17,584 |
17,729 |
30,998 |
30,998 |
17,584 |
13,414 |
4,543,198 |
10,805 |
10,298 |
15,536 |
15,536 |
10,298 |
5,238 |
|
9,270,162 |
20,211 |
18,283 |
29,012 |
29,012 |
18,283 |
10,729 |
11,661,734 |
12,508 |
11,911 |
15,391 |
15,391 |
11,911 |
3,480 |
|
7,800,319 |
17,168 |
16,772 |
28,715 |
28,715 |
16,772 |
11,943 |
3,122,575 |
5,591 |
|
15,364 |
15,364 |
5,591 |
9,773 |
|
7,672,716 |
11,040 |
|
27,757 |
27,757 |
11,040 |
16,717 |
10,354,861 |
12,475 |
11,886 |
15,338 |
15,338 |
11,886 |
3,452 |
|
11,409,072 |
18,634 |
17,096 |
27,505 |
27,505 |
17,096 |
10,409 |
7,812,977 |
5,147 |
|
15,249 |
15,249 |
5,147 |
10,102 |
|
6,138,071 |
12,711 |
15,447 |
26,882 |
26,882 |
12,711 |
14,171 |
7,282,564 |
8,505 |
9,201 |
15,230 |
15,230 |
8,505 |
6,725 |
|
12,884,530 |
15,928 |
15,709 |
26,793 |
26,793 |
15,709 |
11,084 |
9,723,254 |
8,412 |
9,175 |
15,215 |
15,215 |
8,412 |
6,803 |
|
8,559,058 |
15,284 |
15,136 |
25,743 |
25,743 |
15,136 |
10,607 |
9,395,387 |
6,649 |
9,323 |
15,179 |
15,179 |
6,649 |
8,530 |
|
8,316,269 |
10,599 |
15,079 |
25,136 |
25,136 |
10,599 |
14,537 |
5,612,378 |
6,889 |
9,196 |
15,151 |
15,151 |
6,889 |
8,262 |
|
10,658,900 |
15,299 |
14,744 |
24,519 |
24,519 |
14,744 |
9,775 |
6,288,106 |
12,147 |
11,536 |
15,118 |
15,118 |
11,536 |
3,582 |
|
7,347,192 |
12,429 |
14,077 |
24,452 |
24,452 |
12,429 |
12,023 |
7,673,565 |
5,689 |
|
14,919 |
14,919 |
5,689 |
9,230 |
|
11,507,960 |
17,212 |
15,733 |
24,365 |
24,365 |
15,733 |
8,632 |
9,643,189 |
5,690 |
|
14,896 |
14,896 |
5,690 |
9,206 |
|
11,033,253 |
17,490 |
15,887 |
23,491 |
23,491 |
15,887 |
7,604 |
9,784,378 |
11,839 |
11,257 |
14,770 |
14,770 |
11,257 |
3,513 |
|
9,006,131 |
13,102 |
13,628 |
23,332 |
23,332 |
13,102 |
10,230 |
4,932,500 |
7,580 |
8,835 |
14,724 |
14,724 |
7,580 |
7,144 |
|
10,320,616 |
18,406 |
16,818 |
23,139 |
23,139 |
16,818 |
6,321 |
8,045,290 |
9,683 |
9,461 |
14,679 |
14,679 |
9,461 |
5,218 |
|
8,282,948 |
17,200 |
15,647 |
22,947 |
22,947 |
15,647 |
7,300 |
11,228,805 |
10,664 |
10,103 |
14,661 |
14,661 |
10,103 |
4,558 |
|
9,532,000 |
18,105 |
16,533 |
22,902 |
22,902 |
16,533 |
6,369 |
10,320,076 |
10,101 |
9,702 |
14,654 |
14,654 |
9,702 |
4,952 |
|
7,676,656 |
17,415 |
15,857 |
22,680 |
22,680 |
15,857 |
6,823 |
5,444,950 |
7,446 |
8,776 |
14,621 |
14,621 |
7,446 |
7,175 |
|
9,642,973 |
8,337 |
|
22,194 |
22,194 |
8,337 |
13,857 |
4,358,965 |
6,178 |
9,092 |
14,555 |
14,555 |
6,178 |
8,377 |
|
5,514,184 |
17,375 |
15,914 |
22,015 |
22,015 |
15,914 |
6,101 |
12,202,127 |
9,237 |
9,202 |
14,545 |
14,545 |
9,202 |
5,343 |
|
11,141,099 |
7,265 |
|
21,724 |
21,724 |
7,265 |
14,459 |
3,860,063 |
12,629 |
12,744 |
14,517 |
14,517 |
12,629 |
1,888 |
|
11,410,707 |
16,385 |
14,985 |
21,457 |
21,457 |
14,985 |
6,472 |
10,358,432 |
11,393 |
10,800 |
14,484 |
14,484 |
10,800 |
3,684 |
|
10,548,635 |
13,533 |
13,074 |
21,344 |
21,344 |
13,074 |
8,270 |
6,716,137 |
11,802 |
11,310 |
14,477 |
14,477 |
11,310 |
3,167 |
|
10,874,613 |
16,620 |
15,348 |
20,774 |
20,774 |
15,348 |
5,426 |
3,329,839 |
5,032 |
|
14,457 |
14,457 |
5,032 |
9,425 |
|
8,609,986 |
12,871 |
12,610 |
20,722 |
20,722 |
12,610 |
8,112 |
10,266,353 |
4,968 |
|
14,305 |
14,305 |
4,968 |
9,337 |
|
8,947,884 |
12,326 |
12,258 |
20,278 |
20,278 |
12,258 |
8,020 |
9,969,806 |
10,942 |
10,352 |
14,302 |
14,302 |
10,352 |
3,950 |
|
5,255,317 |
16,431 |
15,375 |
20,011 |
20,011 |
15,375 |
4,636 |
3,647,799 |
10,916 |
10,328 |
14,284 |
14,284 |
10,328 |
3,956 |
|
7,603,075 |
10,766 |
11,659 |
19,810 |
19,810 |
10,766 |
9,044 |
7,432,523 |
6,430 |
8,730 |
14,276 |
14,276 |
6,430 |
7,846 |
|
10,069,421 |
13,836 |
12,890 |
19,681 |
19,681 |
12,890 |
6,791 |
8,154,798 |
11,075 |
10,495 |
14,245 |
14,245 |
10,495 |
3,750 |
|
10,622,644 |
16,706 |
16,049 |
19,621 |
19,621 |
16,049 |
3,572 |
11,859,917 |
6,860 |
8,483 |
14,064 |
14,064 |
6,860 |
7,204 |
|
6,923,582 |
15,602 |
14,460 |
19,596 |
19,596 |
14,460 |
5,136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Reinhold,
2015)
Table
29
|
ID |
||
|
19.9526 |
4.3521 |
|
|
19.9526 |
3.7172 |
|
|
19.9526 |
2.6918 |
|
|
19.9526 |
4.4801 |
|
|
19.9526 |
1.6158 |
|
|
19.9526 |
4.3432 |
|
|
19.9526 |
3.8897 |
|
|
19.9526 |
5.2843 |
|
|
19.9526 |
4.0709 |
|
|
19.0900 |
4.2473 |
|
|
17.5481 |
4.4586 |
|
|
17.0223 |
4.9006 |
|
|
15.0447 |
3.9805 |
|
|
14.7366 |
4.5605 |
(Worley,
2020)
Table
30
|
Name |
Age
(Ga.) |
|
CD-47
1087 |
22.7 |
|
HD201891 |
21.7 |
|
HD106038 |
20.7 |
|
G005-040 |
19.5 |
|
BD-21
3420 |
19.2 |
|
HD
22879 |
18.8 |
|
HD212029A |
18.8 |
|
HD
25704 |
18.7 |
|
CD-61
0282 |
18.6 |
|
HD121004 |
18.3 |
|
HD126681 |
17.5 |
|
HD184601 |
17.1 |
|
HD
60319 |
17.0 |
|
HD
17820 |
16.4 |
|
CD-33
3337 |
16.4 |
|
HD127334 |
15.9 |
|
HD
30649 |
14.5 |
|
HD110897 |
14.5 |
|
HD
24339 |
14.4 |
|
HD210752 |
14.0 |
|
HD174912 |
13.8 |
|
G088-040 |
13.8 |
|
HD
3567 |
13.7 |
(Chen,
2001)
Precise stellar ages of stars are necessary to study the
evolution of the Milky Way. The age determination is significantly
affected by C and O abundances of stars due to their contribution to the
overall metallicity and opacity. On the basis of C and
O abundances derived from high-resolution observations, we determine the ages
of 148 FGK-type dwarfs in the solar neighborhood by considering C and O
enhancements individually. (Chen,
2020, page 1)
We find 11 extremely old stars, which are also
presented in Table 6. Seven of them have large
age error ranges (age error range >4 Gyr),
and six have [O/α]
>0.2.
All of these extremely old stars have low masses (<0.8
Mo). We have checked that these
extremely old stars do not group up in any particular part
of parameter space. The reason why these stars have ages older than the
universe is not clear. These abnormal stars might reflect the complex formation
history of the galaxy. We need more samples to study their possible origin and
properties. (Chen, 2020, page 13)
Table
31
|
ID |
Age |
e |
E |
Age |
e |
E |
Max |
Min |
Age |
|
|
Gyr |
Gyr |
Gyr |
Gyr |
Gyr |
Gyr |
Age |
Age |
Difference |
|
HD216259 |
24.50 |
8.15 |
0.83 |
|
|
|
24.50 |
0.83 |
23.67 |
|
HIP74346 |
22.20 |
4.29 |
0.68 |
|
|
|
22.20 |
0.68 |
21.52 |
|
BD+371458 |
22.10 |
2.15 |
2.43 |
|
|
|
22.10 |
2.15 |
19.95 |
|
HD24238 |
21.90 |
2.75 |
2.68 |
|
|
|
21.90 |
2.68 |
19.22 |
|
HD37008 |
21.90 |
2.99 |
2.62 |
|
|
|
21.90 |
2.62 |
19.28 |
|
HD126681 |
18.40 |
2.33 |
0.94 |
21.59 |
6.44 |
0.77 |
21.59 |
0.77 |
20.82 |
|
HIP91605 |
21.30 |
2.93 |
3.46 |
|
|
|
21.30 |
2.93 |
18.37 |
|
HD205650 |
18.40 |
1.18 |
1.01 |
19.90 |
0.57 |
0.45 |
19.90 |
0.45 |
19.45 |
|
HD80367 |
19.10 |
1.23 |
1.71 |
|
|
|
19.10 |
1.23 |
17.87 |
|
HD190404 |
18.40 |
3.55 |
1.96 |
18.91 |
4.97 |
1.18 |
18.91 |
1.18 |
17.73 |
|
HD4628 |
18.30 |
2.09 |
2.58 |
|
|
|
18.30 |
2.09 |
16.21 |
|
HTR376-001 |
18.10 |
1.25 |
1.84 |
|
|
|
18.10 |
1.25 |
16.85 |
|
HIP94931 |
17.90 |
1.83 |
2.92 |
|
|
|
17.90 |
1.83 |
16.07 |
|
HD53927 |
16.32 |
2.35 |
3.58 |
|
|
|
16.32 |
2.35 |
13.97 |
|
HD94028 |
16.30 |
3.24 |
2.81 |
|
|
|
16.30 |
2.81 |
13.49 |
|
BD+090352 |
15.62 |
1.03 |
0.91 |
|
|
|
15.62 |
0.91 |
14.71 |
|
BD-213420 |
14.50 |
0.70 |
0.74 |
15.56 |
0.65 |
0.69 |
15.56 |
0.65 |
14.91 |
|
HD116442 |
15.40 |
2.11 |
2.02 |
|
|
|
15.40 |
2.02 |
13.38 |
|
HD22879 |
12.90 |
0.65 |
0.66 |
15.01 |
1.54 |
1.54 |
15.01 |
0.65 |
14.36 |
|
HD119173 |
14.30 |
0.54 |
0.5 |
14.52 |
0.44 |
0.34 |
14.52 |
0.34 |
14.18 |
|
HD140283 |
14.42 |
1.28 |
2.96 |
|
|
|
14.42 |
1.28 |
13.14 |
|
HD45205 |
13.80 |
1.10 |
0.17 |
14.38 |
0.96 |
0.33 |
14.38 |
0.17 |
14.21 |
|
KIC 787153 |
14.30 |
1.12 |
0.95 |
|
|
|
14.30 |
0.95 |
13.35 |
|
HD199289 |
13.60 |
0.50 |
0.53 |
14.26 |
0.73 |
0.71 |
14.26 |
0.5 |
13.76 |
|
HD241253 |
13.40 |
0.77 |
0.76 |
14.22 |
0.84 |
0.74 |
14.22 |
0.74 |
13.48 |
When ignoring diffusion in the isochrones we obtained ages of 14−16 Gyr. This result is a strong argument against inhibited diffusion in old halo field stars, since it results in a serious conflict with the age of the Universe of 13.7 Gyr. The age obtained including diffusion in the isochrones was 10−12 Gyr, which agrees with the absolute age of the old
globular clusters in the inner halo.
If gravitational settling is ignored in the isochrones employed (i.e. Bergbusch & Vandenberg 1992), the absolute ages obtained for the field stars can be up to 18 Gyr (Schuster et al. 1996). Similarly, Unavane et al. (1996) obtained ages of 15−16 Gyr for a stellar sample of Carney et al. (1994) using Green et al. (1987) isochrones. These ages conflict with the age of the Universe (13.7 Gyr, Bennett et al. 2003). Stellar evolutionary models have improved over the years not only because of considering atomic diffusion, but also better handling of opacities and α-enhanced chemical compositions.
In fact, three of the objects (B163, B393, and B398)
were given
older than the Universe ages (13.75 ± 0.11 Gyr).
(Cezario, 2013)
Table
35
|
Cluster |
Age |
|
B163 |
16.86 |
|
MGC1 |
16.37 |
|
B398 |
16.30 |
|
B301 |
15.89 |
|
B393 |
15.71 |
|
B383 |
13.97 |
|
B134 |
13.72 |
(Cezario, 2013)
We also note that several objects have implied ages that are
older than the canonical age of the Universe from Planck (13.7413.82 Gyr; Planck Collaboration I). In
Appendix D, we show that these points are consistent with objects close to this
upper age limit considering our observational uncertainties. (McDermid, 2015)
75 dates
Table
36
|
Galaxy |
Age |
Galaxy |
Age |
Galaxy |
Age |
|
UGC08876 |
15.56 |
NGC-4472 |
17.70 |
NGC-4259 |
15.56 |
|
PGC-170172 |
17.70 |
|
16.24 |
NGC-4255 |
15.23 |
|
|
14.27 |
|
17.70 |
NGC-4233 |
15.23 |
|
NGC-5846 |
17.70 |
NGC-4417 |
14.58 |
NGC-3674 |
17.70 |
|
|
14.58 |
|
14.27 |
|
14.90 |
|
|
17.32 |
NGC-4406 |
15.56 |
|
17.70 |
|
NGC-5507 |
15.56 |
NGC-4387 |
14.90 |
NGC-3665 |
14.58 |
|
|
14.27 |
NGC-4379 |
17.70 |
NGC-3648 |
15.90 |
|
NGC-5353 |
14.90 |
|
15.23 |
|
14.27 |
|
NGC-5342 |
14.58 |
|
16.95 |
NGC-3641 |
16.59 |
|
NGC-4649 |
17.70 |
NGC-4377 |
14.27 |
|
15.56 |
|
|
17.70 |
NGC-4374 |
14.90 |
NGC-3595 |
17.32 |
|
|
17.70 |
NGC-4350 |
14.90 |
NGC-3530 |
14.27 |
|
NGC-4623 |
14.90 |
NGC-4342 |
17.70 |
NGC-3414 |
14.27 |
|
NGC-4621 |
14.58 |
|
17.70 |
NGC-3379 |
14.27 |
|
NGC-4608 |
17.70 |
|
17.70 |
NGC-2698 |
15.56 |
|
|
17.70 |
NGC-4281 |
14.27 |
NGC-2695 |
17.70 |
|
NGC-4570 |
14.27 |
NGC-4278 |
17.70 |
|
16.59 |
|
NGC-4486A |
17.70 |
|
17.70 |
|
17.70 |
|
|
17.70 |
NGC-4268 |
17.70 |
NGC-2592 |
17.70 |
|
|
14.90 |
NGC-4262 |
14.90 |
|
17.70 |
|
NGC-4486 |
17.70 |
|
14.27 |
|
17.70 |
|
|
17.70 |
NGC-4261 |
16.24 |
NGC-2577 |
14.58 |
|
|
17.70 |
|
15.23 |
NGC-1121 |
17.70 |
|
|
|
|
15.56 |
|
17.32 |
|
|
|
|
|
NGC-0524 |
14.58 |
(McDermid,
2015)
10
dates over 15 billion years
5
dates over one trillion years
58
negative dates
1,540
trillion-year age range
Table
37
|
Cluster |
Qty |
Max
(Ma) |
Min
(Ma) |
Range |
|
a Persei |
233 |
12,100 |
0.011 |
12,100 |
|
Collinder 185 |
21 |
1,720 |
-117 |
1,837 |
|
Coma Berenices |
43 |
5,950 |
-3,820 |
9,770 |
|
Hogg 17 |
28 |
496 |
-44 |
540 |
|
Hyades |
174 |
30,500,000 |
-296,000 |
30,796,000 |
|
IC 1369 |
87 |
4,190 |
-956 |
5,146 |
|
Lynga 2 |
64 |
4,100 |
-166 |
4,266 |
|
NGC-1039 |
46 |
3,650 |
-314 |
3,964 |
|
NGC-1245 |
701 |
5,630 |
-1,440 |
7,070 |
|
NGC-129 |
72 |
346 |
-254 |
600 |
|
NGC-1502 |
68 |
524 |
0.077 |
524 |
|
NGC-1805 |
172 |
702 |
0.000 |
702 |
|
NGC-188 |
230 |
7,770 |
-4,680 |
12,450 |
|
NGC-1907 |
40 |
827 |
111 |
716 |
|
NGC-1912 |
108 |
1,210 |
23 |
1,187 |
|
NGC-1960 |
38 |
271 |
-61 |
332 |
|
NGC-2099 |
301 |
4,300 |
-1,030 |
5,330 |
|
NGC-2168 |
413 |
6,880 |
-4,050 |
10,930 |
|
NGC-2264 |
312 |
1,540,000,000 |
-1 |
1,540,000,001 |
|
NGC-2391 |
29 |
2,400 |
-42 |
2,442 |
|
NGC-2422 |
55 |
5,350 |
-1,530 |
6,880 |
|
NGC-2489 |
81 |
3,280 |
-360 |
3,640 |
|
NGC-2516 |
72 |
1,660 |
-452 |
2,112 |
|
NGC-2527 |
37 |
1,530 |
-206 |
1,736 |
|
NGC-2533 |
87 |
632 |
-167 |
799 |
|
NGC-2546 |
111 |
4,750 |
-473 |
5,223 |
|
NGC-2567 |
62 |
1,530 |
-844 |
2,374 |
|
NGC-2571 |
88 |
849 |
-392 |
1,241 |
|
NGC-2581 |
297 |
3,860 |
0.0007 |
3,860 |
|
NGC-2602 |
126 |
1,320,000,000 |
-6 |
1,320,000,006 |
|
NGC-2632 |
104 |
137,000 |
-32,900 |
169,900 |
|
NGC-2682 |
439 |
30,200 |
-13,000 |
43,200 |
|
NGC-3680 |
87 |
8,070 |
-266 |
8,336 |
|
NGC-457 |
82 |
107 |
-101 |
208 |
|
NGC-4651 |
117 |
2,660 |
5 |
2,655 |
|
NGC-4665 |
102 |
599,000,000 |
-33 |
599,000,033 |
|
NGC-5138 |
62 |
1,450 |
-1,180 |
2,630 |
|
NGC-5460 |
47 |
507 |
-15 |
522 |
|
NGC-559 |
107 |
8,820 |
-260 |
9,080 |
|
NGC-5617 |
138 |
1,150 |
-384 |
1,534 |
|
NGC-581 |
40 |
176 |
17 |
159 |
|
NGC-6025 |
60 |
2,310 |
-124 |
2,434 |
|
NGC-6031 |
71 |
1,440 |
-702 |
2,142 |
|
NGC-6134 |
161 |
7,700 |
-2,690 |
10,390 |
|
NGC-6208 |
190 |
9,780 |
-3,960 |
13,740 |
|
NGC-6613 |
37 |
564 |
-307 |
871 |
|
NGC-6633 |
119 |
100,000 |
-7,860 |
107,860 |
|
NGC-6705 |
189 |
529 |
-117 |
646 |
|
NGC-6716 |
34 |
5,690 |
-590 |
6,280 |
|
NGC-6811 |
352 |
20,000 |
-10,100 |
30,100 |
|
NGC-6819 |
1132 |
6,710 |
-183 |
6,893 |
|
NGC-6866 |
400 |
16,700 |
-900 |
17,600 |
|
NGC-6939 |
218 |
1,920 |
-753 |
2,673 |
|
NGC-7039 |
96 |
3,240 |
-584 |
3,824 |
|
NGC-7062 |
56 |
860 |
-359 |
1,219 |
|
NGC-7082 |
126 |
3,580 |
-1,640 |
5,220 |
|
NGC-7092 |
25 |
1,920 |
-564 |
2,484 |
|
NGC-7209 |
41 |
1,930 |
-206 |
2,136 |
|
NGC-7243 |
45 |
733 |
-184 |
917 |
|
NGC-7380 |
60 |
175 |
-23 |
198 |
|
NGC-752 |
49 |
2,350 |
-1,290 |
3,640 |
|
NGC-7762 |
192 |
4,020 |
-2,240 |
6,260 |
|
NGC-7788 |
78 |
4,970 |
0.099 |
4,970 |
|
NGC-7790 |
64 |
607 |
0.021 |
607 |
|
Pismis 1 |
18 |
888 |
-434 |
1,322 |
|
Pleiades |
99 |
6,690,000 |
-73,100 |
6,763,100 |
|
Stock 2 |
180 |
2,860 |
-352 |
3,212 |
|
Trumpler 22 |
57 |
426 |
-40 |
466 |
(Piskunov, 1980)
116
dates
Table
38
|
HIP Number |
Age |
HIP Number |
Age |
HIP Number |
Age |
HIP Number |
Age |
|
46422 |
17.5 |
107806 |
16.7 |
88351 |
16.1 |
111148 |
15.6 |
|
74075 |
17.5 |
18427 |
16.6 |
7539 |
16.0 |
111565 |
15.6 |
|
90141 |
17.5 |
64345 |
16.6 |
33690 |
16.0 |
18745 |
15.5 |
|
100974 |
17.5 |
65201 |
16.6 |
78609 |
16.0 |
21731 |
15.5 |
|
45003 |
17.4 |
68464 |
16.6 |
90261 |
16.0 |
55805 |
15.5 |
|
|
17.4 |
914 |
16.5 |
3093 |
15.9 |
72045 |
15.5 |
|
84595 |
17.4 |
47663 |
16.5 |
7183 |
15.9 |
107821 |
15.5 |
|
113598 |
17.4 |
58315 |
16.5 |
|
15.9 |
22067 |
15.4 |
|
17472 |
17.3 |
74049 |
16.5 |
48691 |
15.9 |
27609 |
15.4 |
|
53822 |
17.3 |
83716 |
16.5 |
56998 |
15.9 |
32103 |
15.4 |
|
78640 |
17.3 |
20199 |
16.4 |
|
15.9 |
66055 |
15.4 |
|
91808 |
17.3 |
36654 |
16.4 |
66386 |
15.9 |
67205 |
15.4 |
|
101145 |
17.3 |
45514 |
16.4 |
16879 |
15.8 |
68255 |
15.4 |
|
107454 |
17.3 |
45749 |
16.4 |
28240 |
15.8 |
108070 |
15.4 |
|
25190 |
17.2 |
75269 |
16.4 |
66164 |
15.8 |
1746 |
15.3 |
|
31246 |
17.2 |
79276 |
16.4 |
68602 |
15.8 |
18309 |
15.3 |
|
91085 |
17.1 |
84062 |
16.4 |
87368 |
15.8 |
40918 |
15.3 |
|
48412 |
17.0 |
97125 |
16.4 |
|
15.8 |
45759 |
15.3 |
|
69982 |
17.0 |
104476 |
16.4 |
108065 |
15.8 |
77637 |
15.3 |
|
71987 |
17.0 |
9892 |
16.3 |
27246 |
15.7 |
|
15.3 |
|
85373 |
17.0 |
27910 |
16.3 |
62800 |
15.7 |
91860 |
15.3 |
|
2143 |
16.9 |
55714 |
16.3 |
65530 |
15.7 |
112113 |
15.3 |
|
14075 |
16.9 |
62534 |
16.3 |
72821 |
15.7 |
113989 |
15.3 |
|
117006 |
16.9 |
75019 |
16.3 |
73385 |
15.7 |
15799 |
15.2 |
|
14286 |
16.8 |
|
16.3 |
80636 |
15.7 |
24291 |
15.2 |
|
|
16.8 |
81810 |
16.3 |
25880 |
15.6 |
78466 |
15.2 |
|
46685 |
16.8 |
39391 |
16.2 |
61517 |
15.6 |
96425 |
15.2 |
|
86672 |
16.7 |
62681 |
16.1 |
64499 |
15.6 |
102264 |
15.2 |
|
92303 |
16.7 |
79448 |
16.1 |
78163 |
15.6 |
30260 |
15.1 |
(Holmberg,
2009)
145 dates
Table
39
|
HIP |
Age |
HIP |
Age |
HIP |
Age |
HIP |
Age |
HIP |
Age |
|
Number |
Gyr |
Number |
Gyr |
Number |
Gyr |
Number |
Gyr |
Number |
Gyr |
|
46422 |
17.5 |
18427 |
16.6 |
7539 |
16.0 |
21731 |
15.5 |
102838 |
15.1 |
|
74075 |
17.5 |
64345 |
16.6 |
33690 |
16.0 |
55805 |
15.5 |
117902 |
15.1 |
|
90141 |
17.5 |
65201 |
16.6 |
78609 |
16.0 |
72045 |
15.5 |
2941 |
15.0 |
|
100974 |
17.5 |
68464 |
16.6 |
90261 |
16.0 |
107821 |
15.5 |
6136 |
15.0 |
|
45003 |
17.4 |
914 |
16.5 |
3093 |
15.9 |
22067 |
15.4 |
40118 |
15.0 |
|
84595 |
17.4 |
47663 |
16.5 |
7183 |
15.9 |
27609 |
15.4 |
65383 |
15.0 |
|
113598 |
17.4 |
58315 |
16.5 |
48691 |
15.9 |
32103 |
15.4 |
73695 |
15.0 |
|
17472 |
17.3 |
74049 |
16.5 |
56998 |
15.9 |
66055 |
15.4 |
3150 |
14.9 |
|
53822 |
17.3 |
83716 |
16.5 |
66386 |
15.9 |
67205 |
15.4 |
58965 |
14.9 |
|
78640 |
17.3 |
20199 |
16.4 |
16879 |
15.8 |
68255 |
15.4 |
59315 |
14.9 |
|
91808 |
17.3 |
36654 |
16.4 |
28240 |
15.8 |
108070 |
15.4 |
74537 |
14.9 |
|
101145 |
17.3 |
45514 |
16.4 |
66164 |
15.8 |
1746 |
15.3 |
98964 |
14.9 |
|
107454 |
17.3 |
45749 |
16.4 |
68602 |
15.8 |
18309 |
15.3 |
100934 |
14.9 |
|
25190 |
17.2 |
75269 |
16.4 |
87368 |
15.8 |
40918 |
15.3 |
114743 |
14.9 |
|
31246 |
17.2 |
79276 |
16.4 |
108065 |
15.8 |
45759 |
15.3 |
115861 |
14.9 |
|
91085 |
17.1 |
84062 |
16.4 |
27246 |
15.7 |
77637 |
15.3 |
17690 |
14.8 |
|
48412 |
17.0 |
97125 |
16.4 |
62800 |
15.7 |
91860 |
15.3 |
18719 |
14.8 |
|
69982 |
17.0 |
104476 |
16.4 |
65530 |
15.7 |
112113 |
15.3 |
42741 |
14.8 |
|
71987 |
17.0 |
9892 |
16.3 |
72821 |
15.7 |
113989 |
15.3 |
44873 |
14.8 |
|
85373 |
17.0 |
27910 |
16.3 |
73385 |
15.7 |
15799 |
15.2 |
50829 |
14.8 |
|
2143 |
16.9 |
55714 |
16.3 |
80636 |
15.7 |
24291 |
15.2 |
66818 |
14.8 |
|
14075 |
16.9 |
62534 |
16.3 |
25880 |
15.6 |
78466 |
15.2 |
75676 |
14.8 |
|
117006 |
16.9 |
75019 |
16.3 |
61517 |
15.6 |
96425 |
15.2 |
77439 |
14.8 |
|
14286 |
16.8 |
81810 |
16.3 |
64499 |
15.6 |
102264 |
15.2 |
96124 |
14.8 |
|
46685 |
16.8 |
39391 |
16.2 |
78163 |
15.6 |
30260 |
15.1 |
114346 |
14.8 |
|
86672 |
16.7 |
62681 |
16.1 |
111148 |
15.6 |
48661 |
15.1 |
6485 |
14.7 |
|
92303 |
16.7 |
79448 |
16.1 |
111565 |
15.6 |
51901 |
15.1 |
20677 |
14.7 |
|
107806 |
16.7 |
88351 |
16.1 |
18745 |
15.5 |
66817 |
15.1 |
20924 |
14.7 |
(Anderson,
2012)
|
Quantity |
Billion Years |
|
502 |
>15 |
|
322 |
>20 |
|
152 |
>30 |
|
100 |
>40 |
|
74 |
>50 |
|
58 |
>60 |
|
47 |
>70 |
|
31 |
>100 |
|
1 |
>1,000 |
The star CS31082-001 has an age
between 10 to 14 billion years old. (Cayrel,
2001, Page 692)
For these abundance ratios and our production ratio (Th/U)0 = 1.557, the ages for the two halo stars CS 31082_001 and BD +173248 are, respectively, 16.2 and 14.9 Ga, both having
uncertainties of approximately 3.5 Ga arising from observational uncertainties. (Kratz,
2007, Page 50)
Comparing these predicted ratios
with the weighted mean
M15 value given above leads to age estimates ranging from 13.2 to 15.8 Ga, with an average value
of 14.3 Ga. The age estimates
resulting from the theoretical predictions have an uncertainty on the order of 3 Ga. (Sneden, 2000a, Page 88)
From the observed Th abundance, an
average age of 16 Ga is derived for CS 228922052, consistent with the
lower age limit of 11 Ga derived from the upper limit on the U abundance. (Sneden, 2000b, Page 139)
Comparing these initial values
with the observed stellar ratio yields
values of 13.7, 15.7, and 13.1 Ga, with an average age for HD 115444 of 14.2 Ga. (Westin,
2000, Page 798)
Table 40
|
Reference |
Max
(B.Y.) |
Min
(B.Y.) |
Difference |
|
(Albrecht,
2012) |
339,601,816 |
13 |
339,601,803 |
|
(Barnes,
2007) |
20 |
0.164 |
20 |
|
(Brown,
2014) |
28.84 |
3.15 |
26 |
|
(Cowan,
1997) |
16.8 |
13.5 |
3 |
|
(Cowan,
1999) |
41 |
10.2 |
31 |
|
(Cowan,
2002) |
21.7 |
8.2 |
14 |
|
(CSIRO,
2015) |
113 |
-219 |
332 |
|
(Freire,
2001) |
1,873 |
-31,379 |
33,252 |
|
(Freire,
2015) |
67,524 |
-106,470 |
173,994 |
|
(Goriely, 2001) |
22.6 |
1.71 |
21 |
|
(Hayek,
2009) |
36.5 |
-7.3 |
44 |
|
(Johnson,
2001) |
22.5 |
3 |
20 |
|
(Kiziltan, 2010) |
55.71 |
0.75 |
55 |
|
(Krauss,
2003) |
20 |
15.4 |
5 |
|
(Li,
2008) |
20 |
20 |
0 |
|
(Ludwig,
2010) |
37.2 |
-1.5 |
39 |
|
(Maxted, 2015) |
10,000,000,000 |
0.17 |
10,000,000,000 |
|
(Mello,
2014) |
55.57 |
-9.81 |
65 |
|
(Reinhold,
2015) |
200 |
200 |
0 |
|
(Rocha-Pinto,
2002) |
18.9 |
0.28 |
19 |
|
(Roederer, 2009) |
20.4 |
-4.4 |
25 |
|
(Schatz,
2002) |
50 |
-10 |
60 |
|
(Sneden, 2003) |
19.3 |
10.4 |
9 |
|
(Stanford,
2006) |
19 |
19 |
0 |
|
(Wanajo, 2002) |
57.52 |
-118.21 |
176 |
|
(Wanajo, 2003) |
23.37 |
-2.5 |
26 |
|
(Worley,
2020) |
20 |
20 |
0 |
|
Totals |
10,000,000,000 |
-106,470 |
10,000,106,470 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
Albrecht,
Simon, 2012, Obliquities Of Hot Jupiter Host Stars,
2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 757:18
Anderson,
E., 2012, XHIP: An Extended Hipparcos Compilation,
2012, Astronomy Letters, 38, 331346
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=V/137D
Barnes, Sydney A., 2007, Using
Gyrochronology: Viability, Limitations, And Errors, The Astrophysical Journal, 669:1167-1189
Cezario, E., 2013, Milky Way and M31 globular clusters, 2013, Astronomy
& Astrophysics, 549, A60
Chen, Xunzhou,
2020, Ages of Dwarfs in the Solar Neighborhood, 2020, The Astrophysical
Journal, 889:157
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=J/ApJ/889/157/
Chen, Y. Q., 2001, 185
main-sequence stars, 2001, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 371, 943951
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source=J/A+A/371/943
Cowan, John J., 1997, The Thorium
Chronometer, The Astrophysical Journal,
480:246-254
Cowan, John J., 1999, Chronometers
In Metal-Poor Stars, The Astrophysical Journal, 521:194-205
Cowan, John J., 2002, The
Metal-Poor Halo Star Bd+173248, The
Astrophysical Journal, 572:861879
CSIRO,
2021, ATNF Pulsar Catalogue, 2021, http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/pulsar/psrcat/
Freire,
P. C., 2021, Pulsars in globular clusters, 2021, http://www.naic.edu/~pfreire/GCpsr.html
Girardi,
L., 2000, Evolutionary tracks and isochrones, 2000, Astronomy &
Astrophysics, Supplement Series, 141, 371-383
https://vizier.cfa.harvard.edu/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=J/A%2bAS/141/371
Goriely, S., 2001, Actinides: Their
stellar production, Astronomy And Astrophysics, 379:1113-1122
Hayek, W., 2009, Dating of the
strongly r-process enhanced stars, Astronomy
And Astrophysics, 504:511524
Heber, U., 2008, The B-type giant
HD 271791, Astronomy And
Astrophysics, 483, L21L24
Hill, V., 2002, The halo giant CS
31082-001, Astronomy And
Astrophysics, 387:560-579
Holmberg,
J., 2009, The Geneva-Copenhagen survey, 2009, Astronomy & Astrophysics,
501, 941947
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=V/130
Jofre, P., 2011, The age of the Milky Way halo stars, 2011, Astronomy
& Astrophysics, 533, A59
Johnson, Jennifer A., 2001,
Thorium Ages For Metal-Poor Stars, The Astrophysical Journal, 554:888-902
Kiziltan, Bulent, 2010, Millisecond
Pulsar Ages, The Astrophysical Journal,
715:335341
Krauss, Lawrence M., 2003, Age
Estimates of Globular Clusters, Science, 299:65-69
Li, Zhongmu,
2008, Age and metallicity of stellar populations, 2008, MNRAS, 385, 12701278
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=J/MNRAS/385/1270
Ludwig, H. G., 2010, Accuracy of
radioactive dating of stars, Astronomy And Astrophysics, 509[A84]:1-8
Maxted, P. F. L., 2015,
Gyrochronological and isochronal age estimates, Astronomy And Astrophysics, 577(A90):1-11
McDermid,
Richard, 2015, The ATLAS 3D Project, 2015, MNRAS 448, 34843513
https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv105
Mello, Siqueira, 2014, Analysis of very metal-poor r-I stars,
Astronomy And
Astrophysics, 565(A93):1-23
Piskunov, A., 1980, Catalogue of masses and ages of stars, 1980, Donnees Stellaires, 19, 67-70
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=V/19
Reinhold,
Timo, 2015, Gyrochronology of active Kepler stars, 2015, Astronomy &
Astrophysics, 583, A65
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=J/A%2bA/583/A65
Rocha-Pinto, H. J., 2002, Chromospherically young, kinematically old stars, Astronomy And
Astrophysics, 384:912-924
Roederer, Ian U., 2009, Lead And Thorium In The Early Galaxy, The Astrophysical Journal, 698:19631980
Schatz, Hendrik, 2002, Thorium And Uranium Chronometers, The Astrophysical Journal, 579:626638
Sneden, Christopher, 2003, Neutron
CaptureRich Star CS 22892-052, The
Astrophysical Journal, 591:936953
Sneden, Christopher, 2000a, The
Globular Cluster M15, The Astrophysical
Journal, 536:L85L88
Sneden, Christopher, 2000b, New
Observations Of Cs 22892-052, The
Astrophysical Journal, 533:L139L142
Soderblom, David R., 2010, The
Ages of Stars, Annual Review Astronomy Astrophysics, 48:581-629
Stanford, Laura, 2006, The Age
and Metallicity Relation of ω Centauri, 2006, The Astrophysical Journal,
647:1075-1092
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=J/ApJ/647/1075
Wanajo, Shinya, 2002, U-Th Cosmochronology, The
Astrophysical Journal, 577:853865
Wanajo, Shinya, 2003, The R-Process In Supernova Explosions, The
Astrophysical Journal, 593:968979
Westin, Jenny, 2000, Metallicity Giant Hd 115444, The Astrophysical Journal, 530:783-799
Worley, C. C., 2020, The Gaia-ESO
Survey, 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 643, A83
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR?-source=J/A%2BA/643/A83
Zerjal, M., 2017, Chromospherically active
stars in RAVE. II., 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835:61
https://vizier.cds.unistra.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=J/ApJ/835/61