Astronomy - Main sequence and red giants

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the disparity in the number of main sequence stars compared to red giants, attributing it primarily to the longer lifespan of main sequence stars, which can last billions of years. In contrast, the red giant phase is significantly shorter, lasting hundreds of millions to a billion years. Additionally, not all main sequence stars evolve into red giants; only those with initial masses between 0.5 to 10 Solar masses can undergo this transformation. The analogy of finding a four-leaf clover highlights the rarity of red giants compared to the abundance of main sequence stars. Overall, the longevity of the main sequence phase is the key reason for the observed star population differences.
tosv
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
What is the main reason why there are so many more stars in the Main sequence in comparison with the number of red giants?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I'd guess that the main sequence for moderate-low mass stars takes billions of years while the red giant phase is much much shorter. On the order of hundreds of millions to a billion or so years at most I think.
 
I'd agree with Drakkith on that point, plus not all main sequence stars will ever be red giants. They have to be born with 0.5 to 10 Solar masses worth of matter, or have it added to them by a companion during their lives. Akin to finding a four leaf clover on one specific day of the year.
 
Thanks for your replies!

I think my question have been answered now.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top