Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A simple Chart

  1. Apr 21, 2004 #1

    Labguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Seems that not much gets posted here lately. The link is to a simple chart that answers (in advance) some of the questions asked here. Note in particular the abundance label at the bottom of each class, with M Class stars being 80% !

    See how few of the biggies (Class O, B and A) are either (1) left from original formation or (2) forming in current H2 clouds of starbirth. That same,short lifespan carries down to the very small abundance of the Supergiants.

    http://anzwers.org/free/universe/startype.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 21, 2004 #2

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    LABGUY.
    See how few of the biggies (Class O, B and A) are either (1) left from original formation or (2) forming in current H2 clouds of starbirth. That same,short lifespan carries down to the very small abundance of the Supergiants.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the class o stars seem more of an oddity, only 15 known? what is the
    secret to these survivors?
     
  4. Apr 21, 2004 #3

    Labguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Actually, at a ~10 million year life, there wouldn't be any original "survivors". Any Class O, and B I would think, that we can see (detect) today would have to be new 2nd or 3rd generation stars. Some Type A could be 1st generation if they formed late from the original BB material, very late.
     
  5. Apr 21, 2004 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i think i worded that badly LABGUY, i meant is it the short life span or
    the rarity of these stars forming that is the reason only 15 have been
    observed
     
  6. Apr 21, 2004 #5

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    it's a good basic arithmetic question
    lets say that in our galaxy (the part we can see, not obscured by dust etc)
    these biggies form at the rate of X per year

    so if they lasted 10 years then on average we would see 10X in the sky.

    (that is easy to check, if X = 1 that is if one formed per year, and it lasted ten years, then we would see around 10 in the sky at any one time)

    And if X form per year and they last ten million (10^7) years then we would
    see
    10^7 X
    in the sky

    and in fact we see 15 of them

    therefore X = 15 divided by ten million = 1.5 x 10^-6
    that is the rate they form in the Milkyway Galaxy
    0.0000015 per year

    one of those suckers forms every 2/3 of a million years

    so in a billion years only 1500 of them would form, in the whole galaxy

    so from this arithmetic I want to get a sense of how to explain the rarity
    and I have to say BOTH reasons
    because not only does one of those things have a lifetime that is only
    a thousandth of the Sun's (say 10 billion years)

    but they also form extremely rarely, only 1500 in a galaxy in a billion years.

    ----------

    this discussion is simplified because we can probably see these things
    in neighbor galaxies and I was assuming all 15 are in Milkyway
    but it is just a rough calculation anyway
     
  7. Apr 21, 2004 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    wow, the pure, blue diamond of the heavens.
     
  8. Apr 21, 2004 #7

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    blue is right
    Labguy's table says O type surface is 6 or 7 times hotter than sun
    so the mix of wavelengths will be 6 or 7 times shorter
    that is a lot of UV as well as blue

    since we may have Labguy's attention let's keep asking questions
    (he knows lots of answers)

    I have been interested by the fact that there seems to be an upper limit on the size of stars

    O-types are only about 10 times size of sun in diameter

    I dont know the mass ratio but probably O-types never get more than
    100 times solar mass

    why should there be this limit?
    why cannot nature put together a star bigger than that, in situations
    where conditions accidentally happen to be right for it?

    I think I read somewhere that the upper bound on size of star which can
    condense out of dust and gas
    is because of the LIGHT PRESSURE which tends to drive the condensing star apart
    if you try to make too big a star, then its own light pushes it apart
    so it cant fall together and be born

    Labguy will know if this is the correct explanation or not
    Labguy?
     
  9. Apr 21, 2004 #8

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    with all the action just pre BB its almost as if our U
    was pre ordained, "im an athiest",but how many
    possible outcomes could materialise out of that
    mayhem? why an upper mass for stars, planets, why did
    only 0.5% matter evolve into "solid bodies", if the BB
    was more damp squid, why not several super super massive
    stars?
     
  10. Apr 21, 2004 #9

    Labguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Correct on the reason(s) of "light pressure" (high temp. = high radiation pressure = high stellar winds), but there is a candidate for 200 solar masses:

    http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/astro2/astro2_science/nolan.html and:
    http://resource2.ca.jhu.edu/pipermail/jhu_science_and_medicine_news/2002-January/000070.html

    Same pages explain what Marcus said.
     
  11. Apr 21, 2004 #10

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    real questions
    i am an atheist too but
    it does look at least a little bit planned
    (conditions for life almost seem contrived, when looked at
    in a certain light)
    i try not to think about this since for me at least it tends
    to be a waste of time, but i must acknowledge there are real and deep questions people can ask in that department
     
  12. Apr 21, 2004 #11

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    ALways remember that evolution is a soulless process that with enough time can produce the illusion of purpose and design.
     
  13. Apr 22, 2004 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    SELFADJOINT
    ALways remember that evolution is a soulless process that with enough time can produce the illusion of purpose and design.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    i agree, but 500MYs ish, is not a long time when you consider
    the age of our earth. our U did seem to sort itself out quickly.
     
  14. Apr 22, 2004 #13

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    But in the unknown time before our U initiated, we can suppose time enough to evolve. At least we are not limited to the age of the universe. Your statement is like saying 250 ky is not enough time for humans to evolve, when that's the time they have existed as a species.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?