Collapsing Stars on the H-R diagram

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zems
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diagram Stars
AI Thread Summary
Stars that collapse into black holes typically need a core mass between 1.5 to 3.0 solar masses, with supergiants being the most likely candidates. However, the exact mass range for black hole formation remains uncertain, as stars above approximately 40 solar masses tend to explode without leaving behind a neutron star or black hole. The initial mass of a star influences its fate, but environmental factors can also affect mass loss during its evolution. Current understanding relies heavily on computer simulations, and the complexities of supernova mechanics contribute to the ongoing mystery of stellar collapse. Research continues to explore these limits, highlighting the need for further investigation into stellar evolution.
Zems
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi, I've been looking at the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram and was wondering exactly what types of stars collapse to form a black hole? What temperature range/radius etc. turn into black holes. I understand that its most likely the supergiants that form black holes, but what about the giants? Are they too small?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
A giant star is simply a star with greater radius and luminosity than a main sequence star of equal temperature. It doesn't have anything to do with the mass. However, stars do need a minimum of mass to reach the giant stage. According to wikipedia they need greater than 0.25 solar masses.

For a star to collapse into a black hole, the core needs a minimum amount of mass when it reaches the point where it can no longer hold itself up over gravity. I believe this is somewhere between 1.5 - 3.0 solar masses. Note that this is the mass of the core, not the entire star itself. A large percentage of a stars mass will be ejected in the supernova of the collapse, with only the core itself actually collapsing. I would guess that SOME giants can collapse into a black hole, but I really don't know the required inital mass range a star needs.


Interestingly, stars above a certain mass will actually blow themselves apart from the core outwards without leaving a neutron star or black hole, meaning that black holes can only form from stars in a range of masses with a minimum and maximum value.
 
Zems said:
Hi, I've been looking at the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram and was wondering exactly what types of stars collapse to form a black hole? What temperature range/radius etc. turn into black holes. I understand that its most likely the supergiants that form black holes, but what about the giants? Are they too small?

We don't know enough about how supernova work to know the exact dividing line. We are pretty sure that things over 40 solar mass will end up as a black hole and things that are under 15 solar masses will end up as a neutron star. Where the exact dividing line is, we don't know.

Also it could be different for different stars. If a large star has a lot of mass loss because of it's environment, it could behave differently than a small star that doesn't.
 
Drakkith said:
AFor a star to collapse into a black hole, the core needs a minimum amount of mass when it reaches the point where it can no longer hold itself up over gravity. I believe this is somewhere between 1.5 - 3.0 solar masses.

This is one of the uncertain things. In order to calculate that number we need to know how "stiff" nuclear material is, and we don't. If nuclear material is stiff they you need more of it to collapse into a black hole.

A large percentage of a stars mass will be ejected in the supernova of the collapse, with only the core itself actually collapsing. I would guess that SOME giants can collapse into a black hole, but I really don't know the required inital mass range a star needs.

That's cool. No one else does either. We don't know enough about supernova and massive star evolution to go from initial mass to final mass. We know enough to set some limits (i.e. 10 solar mass will not be a black hole. 40 solar mass will), but we don't know enough to figure out the details.

One of the things that I wanted to do with my Ph.D. dissertation was to figure out what the limit was. After seven years of doing my dissertation, I came to the conclusion that what I was doing wouldn't come up with the answer, and so this is a mystery of the universe that someone else needs to take a crack at.

Most of these calculations are done using computer simulations, which can be quite complicated.

Interestingly, stars above a certain mass will actually blow themselves apart from the core outwards without leaving a neutron star or black hole, meaning that black holes can only form from stars in a range of masses with a minimum and maximum value.

That's about 100 solar mass at which point you get a weird pair-production supernova. Also stars in the early universe when there was nothing other than hydrogen/helium are likely to behave very differently than stars today.
 
Exactly twofish! So interesting!
 
thanks for all the replies, it was very enlightening. I would like to know about your thesis twofish-quant.
 
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