Talk:SMSS J031300.36-670839.3

RA/Dec

Does anyone know the RA and Dec of this star? I can't find it in any of the sources that are currently in the article, and this object does not appear to be in any of the major databases yet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Russian and Polish articles both put it at RA 03 h 13 m 00.4 s and DEC -67 ° 08 '39.3 " which I guess they both get from the stars designation. Martin451 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; now I can add the appropriate templates and categories. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Added SM0313 redirect

FWIW - added SM0313 "redirect" to SMSS J031300.36-670839.3 - for easier access and related - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

star location unclear

This newby (me) is confused! I know(?) that the farther away a star is, the older it is. So how can the oldest known star be in our own Milky Way? I thought the article was misworded, then I dug around to find that, yes, we are on the edge of the 120,000 light year diameter Milky Way, and the star is 6,000 light years distance, which puts it IN the Milky Way, as you said. So I guess the farther the star the older the star assumption I made is wrong. I understand that this 13.6 billion year age is based on chemical composition, not distance. But I thought that the farther the star, the more primitive the chemical composition. Can you see my puzzle well enough to clarify this for me? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not true. You're getting two different concepts confused: the farther away a star is, the earlier in its evolution it appears to us; it is not necessarily older. We're seeing its light as it appeared 6000 years ago, so the star actually is 6000 years older than it appears to us. However, this doesn't mean that older stars are farther away. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, we're not really on the edge of the Milky Way; we're more like 1/2 to 2/3 of the way to the edge. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying!! Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

As an example, the Sun is 8 light-minutes away from us, but 4.6 billion years old. The light from z8_GND_5296 left that galaxy over 13 billion years ago, about the same time as SM0313 formed, but most stars we see in z8_GND_5296 will not exist now, having gone bang and or crunch. What we see with SM0313 is a star that formed 13.6 billion years ago, but only 6000 light years from Earth, so we are seeing it as a star that has been burning for over 13 billion years. Martin451 16:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful stuff!! Shouldn't this wisdom be in the article? Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

How Old?

I guess that the current agreed value of the "age of universe since BigBang" is actually 13.8 GYr. So which statement should be given precedence?! "13.6 GYr old" or "100 MYr after BigBang"?! (Unless - of course - the star was in a vegetative state for 100 MYr ;) Hilmer B (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)