How big can a body get (size wize) before it collapses onto itslef?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rubecuber
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Body
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of how massive a body can become before it collapses into a black hole. Participants explore various aspects of this topic, including the limits for stars, the role of density, and the implications of different physical principles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks about the mass limit for a body to collapse into a black hole, distinguishing it from the weight required to become a black hole.
  • Another participant emphasizes that density is crucial, noting that galaxy clusters can be very massive without collapsing.
  • A participant mentions a limit of about 150 solar masses for stars due to radiation pressure, contingent on starting from typical interstellar material.
  • Clarification is provided that the discussion is specifically about stars, not galaxy clusters.
  • One participant points out that fusion cannot be simply turned off and that various factors must be considered when discussing real objects.
  • The Chandrasekhar limit is referenced as a boundary for white dwarf formation, with uncertainty about the upper limit for neutron stars due to the unknown equation of state of neutronium.
  • Concerns about spelling and clarity in communication arise, with some participants advocating for better citation habits and clearer writing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the limits of mass for stars and the conditions under which collapse occurs. There is no consensus on the exact mass limit or the implications of density and composition.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the starting conditions for stars and the complexities involved in stellar evolution, which are not fully resolved.

rubecuber
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, how big can a body get before it collpases upon itself and becomes a black hole? I'm not asking about how heavy it must be to become a black hole (Chandraker told me that) but just simply how massive a body can get
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The thing that really matters is the density. For example, galaxy clusters weigh about [tex]10^{15}[/tex] solar masses, yet they don't "collapse upon" themselves. Can you be more specific with your question? Like what do you mean by "collapse upon itself"? Form a black hole, or not be a part of the Hubble flow and become gravitationally bound?
 
Last edited:
It depends on its composition and so on.

But there is a limit of about 150 solar masses for stars, then they become unbound due to radiation pressure.. (assumes you start building your star from ordinary interstellar media, like solar composition)

So you have the limit there I guess.

But please specify, are you talking about some theoretical thing like "how bid iron sphere you can build" or like I indicated, how big can stars become?
 
Malawi glenn, I'm talking about how big stars can become
 
Great: then the limit is approx 130-150 solar masses due to high radiation pressure. See Prialnik: "Introduction to stellar structure and evolution" Cambridge university press, chapter 7. For example..
 
matt.o I'm talking abouit before it becomes a black hole, and I'm talking about 1 individual objeect, not a galaxy cluster
 
You can't shut of fusion just like that. You must take into account for other things when dealing with real objects. Otherwise it depends on density, a pea could become a black hole if it had enough density.


If you mean Chandraseackar, the chandraseackar limit is just when electron degenarcy pressure can't hold anymore, i.e it is the boundray for becoming a neutron star.
 
Everyone: the name is Chandrasekhar. Sheesh!

rubecuber said:
Hey guys, how big can a body get before it collpases upon itself and becomes a black hole?

Consider supernova remnants. They may form white dwarf stars, neutron stars, or black holes. The Chandrasekhar limit gives an upper limit for how massive the core can be in order to form a white dwarf star. The upper limit for how massive the core can be in order to form a neutron star is not yet known as precisely, due to lack of knowledge of the equation of state of "neutronium". However, it is thought to be around three solar masses; see http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_5/notes21.html

As already pointed out, if we consider stars which are still burning nuclear fuel, much more massive stars can exist. I was talking about what happens when this fuel is exhausted.
 
Last edited:
Freak! His name is hard to spell, this is a forum, not the Nobel Party. The most important is that we understand each other, even though the first guy spelled Chandraker, i know who he meant, because the thing we discuss here is the physics.
 
  • #10
thanks malawi, and all others you guys are great!
 
  • #11
malawi_glenn said:
Freak! His name is hard to spell, this is a forum, not the Nobel Party. The most important is that we understand each other, even though the first guy spelled Chandraker, i know who he meant, because the thing we discuss here is the physics.

I know you both mispelled his name, and that seemed sufficiently worrisome that I spoke up. PF caters to a very diverse group of users, obviously; I paid you an oblique compliment by assuming that you are physicist in training, in which case I think it's important to help inculcate good citation habits as soon as possible. More generally, yes, we all figured out who you and the OP meant, but I am concerned by the decline in spelling and grammatical standards which makes many recent posts essentially illegible, so I feel that even the youngest people at PF should be encouraged to try to formulate their thoughts clearly and to write well. After all, whatever they wind up doing in life, changes are good that an ability to write a crisp and concise memo will serve them well. In the most extreme cases, in encouraging newbies to write clearly one has to being by encouraging them to try to obey such basic rules as (mostly) correct spelling and grammar.

In short, my intentions are good.
 
  • #12
Your intentions are good, yes, but you don't have to get mad/angry.

Also many here are not from England, Usa or Australia, so their grammar might not be the best. But I admitt that some posts are quite awful to read, and some posts have much "chatt" language, as u btw w8 etc, that is not so fun..

But if you want to "complain", don't do it on me...I am not a newbie nor have the worst language here. So play cop with the newbies instead of me, you are just making me quite pissed off..
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
9K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K