第 378 期·中文精讀

安娜·弗雷貝爾:宇宙、星系與恆星的起源和演化

Anna Frebel: Origin and Evolution of the Universe, Galaxies, and Stars

天體物理學家講述宇宙的起源與演化、星系的形成,以及恆星如何鍛造出各種化學元素。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

大爆炸之後的宇宙,是一鍋清湯。裡面只有氫和氦,外加一點點鋰的碎屑。就這些。

麻省理工學院天體物理學家安娜·弗雷貝爾(Anna Frebel)說,從這鍋清湯裡造出恆星或任何結構,其實相當困難。氣體太熱了,熱到無法坍縮、無法成團、無法點燃核聚變。宇宙在最初幾億年裡一直是這個狀態,什麼也沒長出來。

然後第一批恆星出現了。它們的成分只有氫和氦,質量大約是太陽的一百倍。這麼大的恆星壽命極短,幾百萬年就燒完,在宇宙尺度上只是一眨眼。它們以超新星爆發的形式死去,把碳、氧、鎂、鐵一併炸進周圍的星際空間。

弗雷貝爾有個很好懂的比喻:宇宙本來是一鍋湯,第一代超新星爆發撒了第一把鹽。這把鹽讓整鍋湯的味道徹底變了。

重元素不只是調味品,它決定恆星能長多小

撒鹽為什麼這麼關鍵?因為碳和氧這類原子的結構比氫複雜,它們能透過輻射把能量帶出氣體雲,讓氣體冷卻下來。氣體越冷,越容易碎裂成小團塊,團塊越小,最終形成的恆星質量就越小。

而小質量恆星有一個決定性的優勢:壽命極長。太陽的壽命大約是 100 億年,質量比太陽更小的恆星能撐到 150 億甚至 200 億年。這就是弗雷貝爾整套研究工作的立足點。

如果一顆小恆星在大爆炸後不久形成,它到今天依然可以被觀測到。它外層的化學組成,和它形成時那團氣體雲幾乎完全一樣。(安娜·弗雷貝爾)

恆星內部的核聚變只發生在核心,外層的氣體跟核心之間幾乎沒有物質交換。也就是說,一顆恆星誕生時吸進什麼,它的大氣層就一直留著什麼。這些古老的小恆星像一個個被封存的時間膠囊,把 130 億年前的氣體成分配方完整保留到了今天。

弗雷貝爾不需要把望遠鏡推到宇宙邊緣,她只需要對準銀河系外圍這些黯淡的小恆星,分析它們的光譜,就能讀出宇宙最早期的化學指紋。她把這套方法叫作恆星考古學。考古學家挖土找陶片,她挖星星找元素丰度。

銀河系是在吞併鄰居的過程中長大的

古老恆星為什麼會跑到今天銀河系的外圍?

因為銀河系本身就是在吞併中長大的。星系演化有一條基本原則叫層級組裝:大的吃小的。早期的原型銀河系在那片區域裡質量佔優,引力更強,把周圍那些小星系一個個吸進來、拆散、同化。那些小星系裡的恆星就被留在了銀河系的外圍。

所以你在銀河系裡看到一顆極老的恆星,它大機率並非在這裡出生,它是在某個早已被吃掉的矮星系裡形成的。星光走的距離不遠,只有幾千光年,跟恆星本身的年齡完全不在一個量級。弗雷貝爾說這種光對她而言是年輕的,因為它剛從銀河系的某個角落出發。

瞭解了銀河系的結構,抬頭看天的感受會變。它是一個扁平的旋轉盤,我們住在這個盤子裡面,離中心大約三分之二個半徑的位置。你在北半球夏天看到的銀河光帶,其實是相鄰的外側旋臂,它背後是空的,所以看起來稀薄。如果跑到南半球,看到的就是被銀心背光照亮的內側旋臂,那一片亮度高得多,因為銀河系中心區有大量氣體和劇烈進行的恆星形成,是整個星系的派對照常上演的地方。

你可以閉上眼睛,想象自己坐在這張薄餅裡,正對著餅面往外看。你能真切地感覺到自己就在這個二維盤裡,有上方,也有下方。(安娜·弗雷貝爾)

訪談中主持人問她,看這些照片會不會覺得自己渺小。她的回答很乾脆:不會。她說自己感到的是敬畏,還有一種身處其中的實感。很多人以為地球之外是空無一物的黑,這想法其實有點讓人沮喪,但真實情況遠非如此。她把銀河系比作一個正帶著我們繞圈的巨大旋轉木馬,太陽確實在繞著銀心轉,只是我們感覺不到。

化學指紋加上運動軌跡,才能定位一場 130 億年前的吞併

弗雷貝爾最近提交了一篇論文,合作者是三位女本科生。她們篩出一批鍶和鋇含量極低的恆星。鍶和鋇屬於重元素,而宇宙裡只能往氣體中加東西,沒有辦法從氣體裡取走東西。一顆恆星如果重元素含量低到反常,說明給它撒鹽的事件非常少,要麼發生在極早期,要麼發生在極其特殊的環境裡。

論文接下來做了一件事:看這些恆星怎麼動。結果所有樣本都在以每秒上百公里的速度逆著銀河系整體旋轉方向跑,天文學上叫逆行運動。逆行是吸積的典型標誌。一顆恆星如果現在被扔進銀河系,動力學摩擦會慢慢把它拽回順行方向。能以這麼高的速度逆行,只能說明它在極早期就已經進來了,那時候銀河系還沒有形成清晰的旋轉盤,上下左右都沒定下來,什麼東西從哪個方向撞擊都有可能。

弗雷貝爾的比喻是,早期的原型銀河系像一個還沒想明白自己長大要幹什麼的蜂巢,一邊吞一邊長,來的東西有的順著旋,有的反著旋。130 億年後我們還在看這場混亂留下的痕跡。

這顆星每秒上百公里地逆著跑,那它一定很早就從別的地方進來了。你今天沒法把一個小星系反向扔進銀河系,它最終會被轉回來。(安娜·弗雷貝爾)

化學指紋說明來源特殊,運動軌跡說明時間極早,兩條線索拼在一起,就能還原一場遠古的星系吞併。這種多源證據交叉驗證的做法,比任何單一指標都可靠。

太陽是大約一千代超新星的產物

從第一代恆星到太陽,中間隔了多少代?弗雷貝爾的估計是大約一千代。

每一代大質量恆星死亡,都會往星際介質裡補充一批元素,一路加到鐵為止。鐵之後的元素,比如金、銀、鉑,靠的不再是恆星內部的核聚變,而是中子俘獲過程,多數發生在中子星併合或者特殊型別的超新星裡。這類事件稀少、劇烈,會在區域性氣體中留下非常獨特的重元素比例。

所以有些古老恆星的重元素譜線格外複雜。它形成的那團氣體雲,可能被一顆第一代恆星、一次普通超新星、再加一次中子星併合,三四種不同來源反覆醃過。弗雷貝爾的工作就是把這些來源一層層剝開,判斷哪種事件、發生了幾次、按什麼順序疊加。

也有大約十來顆恆星被確認為第二代。它們身上的重元素少到不正常,少到如果只經歷過一次普通超新星爆發,含量應該比現在高得多。宇宙裡沒有吸塵器把這些元素吸走,唯一的解釋就是它們只被一顆第一代恆星汙染過。這種樣本極度稀少,但每一顆都能單獨講一段完整的故事。

說到底我們並不真的在意觀測的那顆恆星本身。我們在意的是它講述的早期宇宙的故事。(安娜·弗雷貝爾)

恆星在她眼裡是一面小鏡子,鏡子裡是剛誕生不久的宇宙。

宇宙年齡這個數字,高中課本和現在差了六十億年

訪談裡有個小細節。弗雷貝爾說,她上高中的時候,教科書寫宇宙年齡是 200 億年。現在是 138 億年。

這個數字的收斂,靠的是幾套完全獨立的手段互相印證:宇宙微波背景輻射的精細測量、引力波觀測、大尺度結構的統計。不同方法給出的結果彼此吻合,說明這一次不是估的。她認為小數位還會繼續挪動,但大框架基本定了。

第一批小質量恆星的形成時間,大致在大爆炸後五億年左右。在那之前,只有大質量恆星在孤獨地燃燒、爆炸、再燃燒。原型星系要等到暗物質先搭好引力勢阱,把氣體和恆星攏在一起,才算真正開始成型。

暗物質在這裡的角色很關鍵。它先於可見物質結團,搭出一個淺淺的引力勢阱,普通氣體才能落進去,恆星才有地方生。星系的骨架由暗物質給出,我們看到的星光只是掛在骨架上的裝飾。

銀河系中心那個黑洞,先有雞還是先有蛋

幾乎所有大質量星系中心都有一個超大質量黑洞,銀河系也不例外,那就是人馬座 A*。但它怎麼來的,目前沒有定論。

弗雷貝爾的團隊研究過銀河系周圍幾十個矮星系。從觀測上看,它們大多沒有中心黑洞。也就是說,一個引力束縛系統完全可以沒有黑洞而存在。那麼憑什麼大星系就有?是黑洞先出現、把星系吸過來,還是星系先長大、在中心養出了一個黑洞?

這個問題現在沒有答案。詹姆斯·韋伯太空望遠鏡(JWST)正在觀測最遙遠、最原始的那批星系,試圖找到早期黑洞的種子。它上天才一年多,已經拿到一些讓理論家頭疼的結果:在某些早期星系裡,中心黑洞的質量相對於宿主星系大得離譜,按照現有生長模型,它們根本沒有足夠時間長到那麼重。

弗雷貝爾希望同行們能把觀測推得更遠、更暗、更原始。技術上的天花板來得很快:系統越小越暗,距離越遠越暗,兩個效應疊在一起,訊雜比會迅速崩塌。我們正在逼近觀測能力的邊界,再往前每一步都要付出巨大代價。

理論家和觀測者說的是兩種語言

訪談裡有一段關於學科隔閡的討論,弗雷貝爾講得很坦率。

她說自己主要觀測恆星,不太碰黑洞資訊悖論那一類理論問題。恆星是化學和物理現象,物理條件並不極端,雖然核聚變需要量子隧穿,有點意思,但整體風味和黑洞物理完全不同。即便是跟做星系數值模擬的同行合作,也會出現說兩種語言的情況。兩邊關心同一個問題、用同一批資料,但表達方式、預設假設、驗證標準全都不一樣。要花很長時間才能真正對上話。

連科學家之間溝通都這麼難,可以想象跟非科學家溝通有多難。但如果你願意花時間,這個過程本身就很有意思,而且往往產出最好的論文。(安娜·弗雷貝爾)

這和人工智慧與神經科學的關係很像。一邊想工程化地造出智慧,一邊想搞清人腦裡的智慧,資料不同、背景不同、方法不同,追問的卻是同一件事。搞模擬的人可以隨手設一堆引數,造出成百上千個宇宙,看哪個跟觀測對得上,像在宇宙尺度上玩沙盒遊戲。搞觀測的人只能等望遠鏡分配給自己的那幾個夜晚,把真實的光子一顆顆收集起來。弗雷貝爾把這比作一個大沙盒,每個人佔一個角落玩自己的,但說到底大家在同一個盒子裡。

她還提到,天文學沒有一天是重複的,因為總能發現新東西。這句話聽著像客套,其實說出了觀測科學的日常狀態:模型永遠追著資料跑。

把真實科研搬進本科課堂

訪談最後講到她在 MIT 開的一門課。

她發現很多本科生不敢給教授寫郵件,說一句我對您的研究感興趣。她想把這條路鋪平,於是設計了一門課,把整個科研流程拆成十份工作表,從選題、查文獻、處理資料到寫成論文,每一步都有結構化模板。她說這事兒比她預想的費勁得多,等於從零把一整個研究專案拆解成可複製的步驟。

課程的承諾很直接:兩人一組報名,每組拿到一顆從未被分析過的古老恆星。學生不需要自己想選題,也不需要先證明自己夠格,只要按流程走,最後真的產出一篇論文。前面提到的那篇關於逆行恆星的論文,就是這麼來的。三位本科生跟著一個直覺走到底,拿到了別人沒拿到的資料。

這個設計的價值不在於課程本身。科研的門檻很多時候不是能力問題,是不知道該怎麼開口、不知道第一步該邁哪兒。把流程顯性化,把任務具體化,門檻就塌了一半。

你可以怎麼用這些內容

  • 下次抬頭看銀河,試著意識到自己在一個盤子裡。銀河系的恆星絕大部分分佈在一個扁平的旋轉盤上,你看到的光帶是相鄰旋臂,你正坐在這個盤中間往外看。這個視角一旦建立,很難再忘掉。
  • 記住“只能加不能減”這條宇宙規則。氣體雲的化學成分只會被後續事件不斷疊加,不會被抹掉。這條規則是恆星考古學成立的前提,也是很多反推方法的底層邏輯。
  • 把“化學指紋加運動軌跡”當成一種通用證據組合。單看成分只能知道來源特殊,單看運動只能知道軌跡異常,兩者合起來才能定位到某次具體的早期吸積事件。多源證據交叉驗證,在任何領域都比單一指標可靠。
  • 對早期宇宙的觀測正在逼近技術極限。越小越暗,越遠越暗,訊雜比會崩。未來幾年的突破更可能來自 JWST 的深度曝光和統計方法,而非發現更遠的單個天體。
  • 如果你在帶學生或新人,把流程寫成工作表。不是每個人都敢主動開口要機會,但給一個明確的結構化入口,很多人就會走進來。那門課最後產出了一篇真論文,這個轉化率值得琢磨。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
Lex Fridman Podcast #378 – Anna Frebel: Origin and Evolution of the Universe, Galaxies, and Stars Machine transcription by Qwen3-ASR 0.6B (MLX, local, Apache-2.0). May contain recognition errors. The following is a conversation with Anna Fribel, an astrophysicist at MIT studying the oldest stars in the Milky Way galaxy in order to understand the chemical and physical conditions of the early universe and how from that our galaxy formed and evolved to what it is today, the place we humans call home. And now a quick just second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description is the best way to support this podcast. We got Hexclad for well designed and well engineered cookware, Numirai for the world's hardest data science tournament and House of Academias for delicious snacks. Choose wisely, my friends. Also, if you want to work with our team, we're always hiring. Go to hexfreeman dot com slash hiring. And now onto the full ladreads, never any ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out the sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, maybe you will too. This episode is brought to you by a new sponsor, Hexclad, the maker of well engineered and patented in quotes hybrid cookware. I don't know what that means. All I know it looks badass. I got it a couple of weeks ago. I already cooked a couple of steaks on it. It's just perfect. My goal for this weekend actually is to cook an omelette on it, but it works perfect for steak, nonstick. I don't know how they do it, but as they say, has the performance of a stainless steel, the durability of cast iron, and it has non toxic and nonstick coating. The steaks, in case you are wondering, were delicious. I like it about medium rare, and there is probably a lot more to be said about how I like to cook steak in different conditions when I am traveling, when I am at home, all that kind of stuff. But steak is the simple meal I return to time and time again for source of simple happiness and fulfillment. Almost exclusively, I've been eating one time a day, and so it's steak, big steak with a bunch of veggies on the side if I am going keto and just steak if I am going carnivore. Anyway, go to hexclad dot com and use code Lex to get 10 off your entire order. That's hexclad dot com and use code Lex for 10 off your entire order. This show is also brought to you by Numirai, a hedge fund that I've talked a bunch about in the past. It uses machine learning to make investment decisions, and it's a tournament that challenges data scientists from all over the place to construct predictive models for financial markets and then it uses those models to help people make financial decisions. If you are data scientist and you want to be involved, this is an amazingly interesting, complex, difficult and impactful machine learning tournament and challenge. I think too often in the machine learning community the problems are work with a toy problems, and so I really love the idea that Numirai is creating this problem, this giant problem. That is not at all a toy. It's working with real markets and real money. That's to me super exciting. Head over to numirai dot com slash lex to sign up for a tournament and hone your machine learning skills. That's numirai dot com slash lex for chance to play against me, yes me, and for chance to win a share of the tournament's prize pool. This show is brought to you by House of Academias, a company that ships delicious, high quality and healthy Academia nuts and Academia nut based snacks directly to your door. They're perfectly portioned. I give it to the guests; they love it. I mean, it's everything you want in a snack in terms of healthiness, in terms of deliciousness, in terms of bringing variety and joy to your life. They got bars, they got whole nuts, they got whatever. It's 30 less carbs and almonds. It's the only nut rich in omega sevens. I think a long time I was reading what is the healthiest nut, and Academias were up there. I believe they were at number one in the website I was looking at. And I was heartbroken to find out that I think peanuts were at the bottom, and you know so much of my life I've wasted on peanuts when I could have been spending all this valuable time with Academia nuts. Anyway, if you want some more delicious nuts in your life, go to house of academias dot com slash lex to get a free box of their best seller, the Namibian sea salted Academia nuts. They're delicious, plus 20 off your entire order. That's house of academias dot com slash lex. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here is Anna Fribel. Let's go back to the early days. What did the formation of the Milky Way galaxy look like? Or maybe we want to start even before then. What did the formation of the universe look like? Well, we scientists believe that was the Big Bang, some big beginning. But what is important for my work and I think that's what we're going to talk about is what kind of elements were present at that time. So the Big Bang left a universe behind that was made of just hydrogen and helium and tiny little sprinkles of lithium. And that was pretty much it. As it turns out, it's actually quite hard to make stars or any structure from that. That's very hot gas. And so the very first stars that formed prior to to any galaxies were very massive stars, big stars, hundred times the mass of the sun, and they were made from just hydrogen and helium. So big stars explode pretty fast after a few million years only. That's very short on cosmic timescales. And in their explosions, they provided the first heavier elements to the universe because in their cores all stars fuse lighter elements like hydrogen and helium into heavier ones. And then that goes all the way up to iron, and then all that material gets ejected in these massive supernova explosions, and that marked a really really important transition in the universe because after that first explosion. It was no longer chemically pristine, and that set the stage for everything else to happen, including us here talking today. What do you mean by pristine? So there is a whole complex soup of elements now as opposed to just hydrogen, helium, and a little bit of lithium. Yeah, so after the Big Bang, just hydrogen and helium. We don't really need to talk too much about lithium because the amount was so small. And after these very first stars formed and exploded, they, heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, magnesium, iron, all of that stuff was was suddenly present in the gas clouds. In tiny amounts only, very tiny amounts. But and that actually helped, especially the carbon and the oxygen to to make the gas cool. These atoms are more complicated than hydrogen. That's just a proton, and so it has cooling properties, can send out photons outside of the gas cloud, so the gas can cool. And when you have gas that that gets colder and colder, you can make small and smaller stars. So you can fragment it and clump it and turn it into stars like like the sun. And the cool thing about that is that when you have small stars like the sun, they have a really long lifetime. So those first low mass stars that formed back then are still observable today. That is actually what I do. I try to find these early survivors because they tell us what the gas looked like back then. They have preserved that composition of these early gas cloud, the chemical compositions until today. So I don't need to look very far into the universe to study all the beginnings. I can just chemically analyze the oldest stars and it's like unpacking everything that that happened back then. It's very exciting. So to just reiterate, so in the very early days in the first few million years, there was giant stars that's mostly hydrogen and helium, and then they exploded in these supernova explosions and then they made these clumps. Yeah, so the first stars pristine. Not pristine clumps. Yeah, pretty much fun. So it took a few hundred million years for the first stars to emerge, and then they exploded after a few million years, kaboom, and then it's like I always consider the universe like a you know a nice soup. And then these first supernova explosions kind of provided the salt, you know, just a little sprinkle of heavier elements, and that made it really tasty. Just changed it completely, right? And that changed the physics of the gas. So that meant that these these gas clouds that were you know surrounding the the former first stars they could now cool down and clump and form the next generation of stars that now included also little stars. And as I just mentioned, the small stars have these really long lifetimes. The sun has a lifetime of 10 billion years. Any star that is even less massive will have an even longer lifetime. So that gives us a chance to to still observe some of the stars that formed back then. So we are testing the the conditions, the chemical and physical conditions of the early universe even before the galaxy formed. So what's the timeline that we're talking about? What is the age of the universe and what is the earliest time we got those salty delicious soup clump soups with heavier elements. Well, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Allegedly, yeah. Is it so? Okay, thirteen. Well, you know when I was in high school, the universe was 20 billion years old. Yeah, so the estimate have changed. Do you think that estimate will evolve in interesting ways or no? Is that is it? I think we have mostly converged. Yes, because the techniques are are very different now, much more precise. The whole business of precision cosmology by mapping out the cosmic microwave background. You know that that's a marvelous feat. Maybe you know the digits will still move around a little bit, but that's all right. Plus the gravitational waves and all that. So all the different sources of data, yeah, kind of mapping out this detailed picture the early universe. Yeah, totally. And so we think the earliest little stars formed. I don't know, maybe half a billion years after the Big Bang, right? Again, a few hundred million years for the first stars to emerge and then you know took some time. So give or take half a billion years. And that was the time when sort of the very first proto galaxies formed early stellar structures, stellar systems from which the Milky Way eventually formed, right? So it was the Milky Way probably a bigger slightly bigger one. And we know today that galaxies grow hierarchically, which means they eat their smaller neighbors. So if you are the bigger one and have a few few friends around, you just gonna eat them, absorb them, and then you grow bigger. And so all these these little early stars you know kind of came into the Milky Way through that kind of process. And that's why we find them in the outer parts of the galaxy today because they just kind of have been just left there since. So the old stuff is on the outskirts of the galaxy and the new stuff is in closer to the middle. Is there broadly speaking? Okay, yes. So that's where you would look for it. So maybe just to step back, like what is a galaxy? What is a proto galaxy? I love that question. So the galaxy is a huge assembly of stars. The Milky Way contains something like 200 to 400 billion stars, and most of the material and the stars are in the disk. And when we look at the night sky, what we see as the Milky Way band on the sky, that is actually the the inner the next inner spiral arm because we actually live in a spiral disk galaxy. So the Milky Way is a spiral disk galaxy. And we are looking actually depends a little bit in the northern hemisphere we're looking out of the galaxy, so we're seeing the next outer spiral arm. And as you can imagine, there is only dark space behind that, so we don't see it all that nice on the sky. But if you travel to south to the southern hemisphere, let's say South America, you see the Milky Way and it looks so different on the sky because that's the next inner spiral arm and that's backlit by the galactic center. The galactic center is is a very big puffy you know region of gas. There is a lot of star formation that the the galactic party is happening there, so it's very bright and it it makes for this very beautiful Milky Way on the night sky that we see. So actually, if you if you ever get the chance to experience that, I encourage you to almost like close your eyes while seeing this and imagining that you are sitting in this kind of disk in this pancake and you are just kind of looking right into it and you can you can really feel that we are in this 2D disk. And then you can imagine that there is a top and a bottom and that that we really part off the galaxy. You can really experience that we're just not not just lost in space somewhere, but we're really a part of it. And you know knowing a little bit about the structure of the Milky Way really helps. Do you feel small when you think about that? When you look on that spiral on the inside of the Milky Way and then you look out to the outside, how are we supposed to feel? I don't know. I don't feel small necessarily. I feel in awe and I feel I am a part of it because I can really feel that I am a part of it. I think for many people they think like oh there is just the planet and then there is nothing and that's almost a little bit sad but that's really not the case right because there is there so much more and I really like to imagine wow I'm I'm sitting in this big galactic merry go round and we're going around the center and I can see the center above me right and I can almost feel like we're going going there. Of course, we can't really feel that, but the sun does circle the galactic center. But there is a kind of sadness to like looking pictures of a nice vacation place. All we get is that light, an old light. Do you feel like sad that we don't get to travel or you and I will not get to travel there and maybe humans will never get to travel there. Yeah, I always wanted to travel to space and see the Earth and other things from from up there. There are certainly that, but I don't know it's it's also okay to just be at our vantage point and and see it from from here. With the sensors, with the telescopes that we have, and explore the possibility. Yeah, I mean there is a kind of wonder to the mystery of it all. What's out there? What interesting things that we can't possibly imagine. You know there could be all kinds of life forms, bacteria, all this kind of stuff. I tend to believe that you know it depends on the day. I tend to believe there is just a lot of very primitive organisms just spread out throughout and they build their little things like bacteria type organisms. And just to think what kind of worlds there are because they're probably really creative living organisms. Because the conditions, I guess the question I am wondering to myself when I look out there to the stars, how different are the conditions on the different planets that orbit those stars. Will definitely be very different. I mean the variety out there is is huge. We know now that I think it's about every other star has at least one planet. I already mentioned the number of stars in the galaxy. I mean, you know, it's that's it's a huge number of planets out there. So who knows what that looks like? All we know is that there is there is a lot of variety. We don't quite yet understand what drives that, what governs that, why that is the case, why is it not all one size fits all. You mean the dynamics of planet formation, like exoplanet formation or star formation? The whole right, all of it. All of it. Star formation is remains a much research topic. We kind of we definitely know that it works because all the stars are there. Same for the planets, but the details are so varied per gas cloud, right? It's very hard to to come up with very detailed prescriptions. Broadly, we have figured it out. You need a gas cloud, you need to cool it, something clumps and fragments and somehow it makes a star with planets or without. But the dynamics of the clumping process is not fully understood. No, no, and and the local conditions are so varied, right? I mean, it's the same with you know all people look like people, but individually we look very different. So even the subtle diversity of the formation process creates all kinds of fun. Yes, so we just don't know how this turned out in an individual case, and it's kind of hard to to figure it all out and and to take a look certainly with planets, right? The chance for ever to ever actually take a picture of a planet is miniscule because they don't shine, so they're really dark. So I'd say there is there is there is a lot of possibility out there, but we have to be a little bit more patient. Or come up with technologies where patience becomes less necessary by extending our lifetimes or or increasing the speed of space travel, all the kind of stuff. Humans are pretty pretty intelligent. They're pretty sometimes, yeah, for the most part. I hope when I'm on the optimistic days. Well, maybe just to linger on the on the what a galaxy is. What should we know about our understanding of black holes in the formation? Is that an important thing to understand in the formation of a galaxy? Like so, all the orbiting, all the spiraling that's going on. How important is that to understand? All of the above, that's what makes astronomy really hard, but also really interesting. Right, no day is like another because we always find something new. I want to come back to the the idea of the proto galaxy because it actually matches or you know relates to to the black hole formation. So most large well, pretty much all large galaxies have a super massive black hole in the center and. We don't actually know. Don't we don't really know where they come from. Again, we know that they are there, but how how do we get there? So if we go back to the to the early universe, right? We had a a little galaxy that just sort of you know I don't know had some small number of stars. It was a first gravitationally bound structure that that was held together by dark matter because dark matter actually kind of structured up you know first before the luminous matter could because that's what dark matter kind of does and it it started to hold gas and then stars sort of together in these first very shallow what we call potential wells so these gravitationally bound systems and then the Milky Way grew from absorbing neighboring smaller even smaller systems and somewhere in that process there must have been a seed for one of these super massive black holes and I'm I'm not actually sure that it's clear right now kind of what was there first the super massive black hole or the galaxy so lots of people are trying to study that and of course the black hole wasn't as massive back then as it is these days but it's that's a it's a big area of of research and the new James Webb the JWST the telescope the infrared telescope in space is is working on many people are working on that to to figure out exactly what what happened and there are some some surprising results that we really don't understand right now so so to solve the the chicken or the egg problem of do you need the super massive black hole to form a galaxy or does the galaxy naturally create the super massive black hole yeah yeah I mean I think to some degree we we can answer that because there are lots of little dwarf galaxies out there you know the Milky Way remains surrounded by many dozens of of small dwarf galaxies I have studied a bunch of them and to the extent that we can tell they do not contain black holes so they are certainly were gravitationally bound structures so either you can call them proto galaxies or dwarf galaxies or first galaxies they were definitely there but there must have been bigger of these things like the proto Milky Way where something was different right what made them more massive so that you know they would gravitationally attract these smaller systems to to integrate them so we'll have to see how do we look into that the into the the dynamics of the formation and the evolution of the proto galaxies is it possible that they shine I mean what what are the set of data that we can possibly look at so we got gravitational waves which is really insane that we can even detect those there's light what what else can we so that that would fall into the category of observational cosmology and the the JWST is is the prime telescope right now to and it promises big big steps forward this is in its early days because it's only been online like a year or so but that collects the infrared light from the farthest like literally proto galaxies earliest galaxies that light has traveled some 13 billion years to us and they are observing these faint little blobs and folks are trying to you know again study the early the onset of these early super massive black holes how they shape galaxies so they they are seeing that they are they were there you know surrounded by already bigger galaxies ideally I'd like for for my colleagues to push a little bit further hopefully that will eventually happen in terms of looking towards older and older ones yeah yeah and more and more sort of primitive in terms of the structure but of course as you can imagine if you make your system smaller and smaller it becomes dimmer and dimmer and it's further and further away so we're reaching the end of the line from a technical perspective pretty quickly but it's dimmer and dimmer means older and older yes in a sense because it all started really small because the smaller smaller which correlates to older in that phase of the universe it would otherwise it it doesn't just to take a small attention about black holes and you know because you do quite a bit of observational cosmology and maybe experimental astrophysics what's the difference to you between theoretical physics and experimental so there's a lot of really interesting explorations about paradoxes around black holes and all this kind of stuff about black holes destroying information do those worlds intermix to you when you especially when you step away from your work and kind of think about the mystery of it all well at first glance there there isn't actually much cross talk personally I mostly observe stars so I don't usually actually think too much about black holes and stars is a fundamentally kind of chemical physical phenomenon that doesn't that's right the physics is is kind of different it's not extreme I mean you know you could consider a nuclear fusion sort of be perhaps extreme you need to tunnel there are some interesting physics there but it's it's just a different flavor and I don't I don't do these kinds of calculations myself either I I very much like to talk with my theory colleagues about these things though because I find there's always an interesting intersection and often it's it's just I've I've written a number of papers with colleagues who do like simulations about galaxies and so they are they are not quite as far removed as let's say the the black hole you know pen and paper folks but even in those cases we had the same interest in the same topics but it was almost like we're speaking two different languages and we weren't even that far removed you know both astronomers and all and it was really interesting just to take the time and really try to to talk to each other and it's it's amazing how how hard that is you know even among scientists we already have trouble talking to each other imagine how hard it is to talk to non scientists and other people to try you know to we're all interested in the same things as humans at the end of the day right but everyone has sort of a different angle about it and different questions and way of formulating things and sometimes it really takes a while to to converge and to to get you know to the common ground but if you take the time it's so interesting to participate in that process and it feels so good in the end to say like yes we tackled this together right we overcame our our differences not not so much in opinion but just in expressing ourselves about this and how we go about solving a problem and these were some of my most successful papers and I certainly enjoyed them the most it can also lead to big discoveries I mean there's a I think you put it really well in saying that we're all kind of studying the same kind of mysteries and problems I mean I see this in the space of artificial intelligence you have a community maybe it seems very far away artificial intelligence and neuroscience you know you would think that they're studying very different things but one is trying to engineer intelligence and in so doing try to understand intelligence and the other is trying to understand intelligence and cognition in the human mind and they're just doing it from a different set of data different set of backgrounds and the researchers that do that kind of work and probably the same is true in observational cosmology and simulation so it's it's like a fundamentally different approach to understanding the universe let me use for simulation let me use the things I know to create a bunch of parameters and create some just play with it play with the universe play God create create a bunch of universes and see in way that matches experimental data it's a it's a fun it's like playing Sims but at the cosmic level yes but and then probably the set of terminology used there is very different and maybe you are allowed to break the rules a little bit more let's have you know yeah take the Drake equation yeah you don't really know you kind of come up with a bunch of values here and there and and just see how it evolves and from that kind of intuit the different possibilities the dynamics of the evolution of a galaxy for example yeah but it's cool to play between those two because we it seems like we understand so little about our cosmos so it's good to play yes it's it's like a big sandbox right and everyone kind of has their little corner and they do things but we're all in the same sandbox together at the end of the day but in that sandbox does have super powerful and super expensive telescopes that everybody's also all the children are fighting for the resources to to make sure they get to ask the right questions using that big cool tool well can we actually step back on the the the big field of stellar archaeology what is this process can you just speak to it again you've been speaking to it but what what is this process of archaeology in the cosmos yeah it's it's it's really fascinating so I mentioned the the lesser the mass of the star the longer it lives and again for reference for the next dinner party the sun's lifetime is 10 billion years so if you have a star that's 0.6 or 0.8 solar masses then its lifetime is going to be 15 to 20 billion years and that's that's an important range for our conversation because again if you assume that such a small star formed soon after the Big Bang then it is still observable today you mentioned old light before yeah that light is like a few thousand years old but compared to the age of these stars is nothing so to me that's young it comes straight from from a galaxy oh you know it's not far these stars are not far away they are in our galaxy in the outskirts they probably did not form in the galaxy because again hierarchical assembly of a Milky Way meant exactly they formed in a little other galaxy in the vicinity and at some point the Milky Way ate that which means it absorbed all the stars including you know these little old stars that are now in the outskirts of the Milky Way that I used to point my telescope to so what can we learn from these stars why should we study them now these little stars are really really efficient with their energy consumption they are still burning for the experts just burning hydrogen to helium in their cores and they have done so for the past 12 13 billion years however all they are and they're going to keep doing that for another few billion years same as the sun the same sun also just does hydrogen helium burning and will continue that for a while which means the outer parts of the star well pretty much actually most of the star that gas doesn't talk to the core so whatever composition that that star has you know in in its outer layers is exactly the same as the gas composition from which the star formed which means it has perfectly preserved that information from way back then all the way to today and going forward so I'm a stellar archaeologist because I don't dig in the dirt to find remnants of past civilizations and and whatnot I dig for the star for the old stars in the sky because they have preserved that information from this first billion year years in their in their outer stellar atmosphere which is what I'm observing with telescopes so I'm getting the best look at the chemical composition early on that you could possibly wish for what kind of age are we talking about here are we talking about something that's close to that you know like a 13 billion 12 13 billion age range that's what we what we think now there's a small caveat here we cannot accurately date these stars but we use a trick to say oh these stars must have formed as some of the earliest generations of stars because we need to talk about the chemical evolution of the universe in the Milky Way for a second so already mentioned the the pristineness of of the universe after the Big Bang right just hydrogen and helium then the first stars formed they produced a sprinkle of heavier elements up to iron then the next generation of stars formed that included again massive stars that they would explode again but also the little ones that keep on living right so and then the massive ones again explode as supernova so they provide again another sprinkle of heavier elements and so over time all the elements in the periodic table have been built up there have been other processes for example neutron star mergers and other exotic supernovae that have provided elements heavier than iron all the way up to uranium from very early on we're still trying to figure out those details but I always say pretty much all the elements were done from like day three so iron is where like once you get to iron you got all the fun you need most of the fun yes I know I I really like the heavier elements you know gold silver platinum that kind of stuff for personal reasons or for star formation well both I mean like what's the importance of these heavier metals in in the evolution of the stars so they have they are the spice of life right so every supernova gives you elements up to iron that's cool but at some point it gets a little bit boring because that always works but that's the baseline we need that and that's certainly what came out of the first stars and then all the other supernova explosions that you know followed with every generation and I talk about a thousand generations give or take until the sun was made so the sun formed from a gas cloud that was enriched by roughly thousand generations of supernova explosions and that's why the sun has its its chemical the the chemical composition that it has including you know and somehow the planets were were made from that as well so the supernova explosions the many generations are creating more and more complex elements no it just goes all the way up to iron and then it just it's a little bit more of of all of these elements just more yeah just yeah it's one sprinkle then another and it just kind of adds up right now the heavy elements form in very different ways they are not fusion made they are made typically through neutron capture processes but for that you need seed nuclei ideally you know iron or carbon or something so the supernova made elements are a very good seed nuclei for other processes they then create heavy elements and because they cannot be made everywhere they when you when you know so I my some of my stars have huge amounts of these heavy elements in them and they tell us in much more detail something really interesting happened somewhere well wait I thought I thought the really old ones we would not have so what does that mean if if the old yes important clarification um so the stars that we are observing today these old ones they formed from the gas and the question is what enriched that gas so it could have been just a first star dumping their elements into that gas all the way up to iron and we have found some stars that we think are second generation stars so they form from gas enriched by just one first star that's super cool yeah then we find other old stars that have a much more complicated um heavy element signature and that means okay they are probably formed in a gas cloud that had a few things going on such as maybe a first star maybe another more normal supernova and maybe some kind of special process like a neutron star merger that would make heavy elements and so they created a local chemical signature from which the next generation star then formed and that is what we're observing today so all these old stars basically carry the signature from all their this these progenitor events and it's it's our job then to unravel okay which processes and which events and how many you know may have occurred in the early universe that led to exactly that signature that we observed 13 billion years later is it possible to figure out like the number of generations that resulted in this in these stars well we can we we think we can sort of say okay this was like second generation or third because the amounts of heavy elements in in the stars that we observe um is so tiny one super one normal supernova explosion is actually already basically too much it would give us too much of it and the thing is you can never take away things in the universe you can only add there's no cosmic vacuum cleaner going around sucking things away the black holes probably the closest to that but they would have taken the whole star yeah they take the whole thing that would have taken stuff out of the gas you know um so we have a maybe 10 stars or so now where we where we are saying they contain so little of these heavy elements that there must be second generation because how else would you have made them and again I want to I want to stress that the elements that we observe in these stars were not made by the stars themselves that we observe they that's just a reflection of the gas cloud so we don't actually I had to say that because I love stars we don't at the end of the day we don't really care for the stars that we're observing we care for the story that they're telling us about the early universe so yeah so the stars are kind of a small mirror into the the the early universe yeah and so what are you detecting about those stars can you tell me about the process of archaeology here like what kind of data can we possibly get to tell the story about these heavy elements on these stars yeah it depends really on what star you find there are many different chemical signatures we actually pair up these days our our our element signatures with also kinematic information how the star moves about the galaxy that actually gives us clues um As to where the star might have come from, because again, all these old stars are in the galaxy, but they are not off the galaxy. That's a small but important distinction. So they all came from somewhere else. You can rewind back in time to kind of estimate where where it came from. Yeah, so we can't really say, "Oh, it came from that in that dwarf galaxy," but interestingly enough, so I'm just just a few days ago I submitted a paper with three women undergrads. That was so good to work together, and we found a sample of stars that have very very low abundances in strontium and barium, so very heavy elements. And I had a hunch for a while that these stars would probably be some of the oldest, because as I said, heavy elements give you extra information about special events. And again, finding something that's really low means it must have for it that must have happened either really early on or in a very special environment, right? Because we can only ever add. So if you find something that's that's incredibly low in terms of the abundance, it maybe just one event contributed that max. So we looked at the kinematics: how are these stars moving? And they're all going the wrong way in the galaxy. How how is that possible? Well, it is possible because consider now we come back to the protogalaxy. The protogalaxy was like a beehive; it just didn't really know what it was or what it wanted to become when it grew up. So and it was absorbing all these little galaxies to grow fast. Some galaxies, some absorbed galaxies were thrown in going the main way, and some came in the wrong way, happens. It happens, but this could only happen early on when you know there wasn't left and right and up and down, so stuff would come in from always. So now, 13 billion years later, we're still doing it. Yeah, a they're still doing it, and B we just looked for stars that have low strontium and barium abundances, and then we look at the kinematics, and lo and behold, there are at hundreds of kilometers per second going the wrong way. It's like, dude, you must have come in really early on from somewhere else. So we call this retrograde motion. That's a clear sign of accretion, so something that has come in to the galaxy, and because they are so fast, um, and it it's really all of them. That that must have happened early on, right? You can't throw a galaxy into the Milky Way right now the wrong way. It eventually will turn around. Can you actually just in a small tangent speak to the the three women undergrads like this little? It's pretty cool that you were able to use a hunch to find this really cool little star. Yeah, what's the process like? Especially with undergrads, I think that would be very interesting and inspiring to people. Yes, it was a wonderful little collaboration that actually emerged in the fall. I so I like I really like working with with undergrads and grad students postdocs, and I came up with a new concept for a class at MIT where I wanted to integrate the research process into the classroom. Because sometimes people find it really hard to call email a professor, hey, you know this I'm this and that person and I'm interested in your research, could have possibly you know come. And I wanted to to streamline that and give and you know just trial how it would work to provide a sort of the safe confines of a classroom where you just sign up and do research in a very structured way. And I developed it was a lot of work, a little bit more than I thought to map up an entire research project basically from scratch in 10 worksheets so that they could do it again in a very structured and organized fashion. Oh, you created this whole framework for for them to do the whole thing. Um, but the promise was, you come sign up for my class in teams of two. You each get your own old star that has not been analyzed before. I don't know what

本集資源與出處