Is There Mathematical Proof That Stars Are Still Being Formed?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the question of whether there is mathematical proof that stars are still forming. Participants express skepticism about deriving a mathematical proof without relying on observational evidence, noting that while observational data suggests ongoing star formation, a purely mathematical argument is challenging. One contributor suggests that if the lifetimes of certain stars are shorter than the age of the universe, it implies that new stars must be forming. However, this reasoning still depends on observations and does not eliminate the possibility of star formation ceasing at any moment. Overall, the consensus is that while mathematical relationships exist, they cannot definitively prove ongoing star formation without observational support.
Max.Planck
Messages
128
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have a question from the Dutch Astrophysics Olympiad, which I can't solve.

" Is there mathematical proof that stars are still being formed? "

In previous questions, i had to derive the following equations, which i need to use in my answer for the question above:

L = σ * T4 * 4πR2

(Luminosity-Temperature relation of a star, where σ is the Boltzmann constant, T is temperature and R is the radius of the star)

t = life time of sun * (M/Msun)-2,6

(where t equals the life time of a type V star and M equals mass)

Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks,

Max.Planck
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Observational evidence? yes. Mathematical proof? don't think so...

I don't see how you can get a mathematical proof for star formation...

Perhaps they are asking you to show that the life-time of some stars is less than that of the age of the universe and therefore if there was no star formation after the BB, we wouldn't see any of those stars...? This still relies on observation (of the massive stars), and it doesn't preclude the possibility that star formation has stopped this instant (rather than billions of years in the past).

I honestly can't think of any proof that would both not rely on observational evidence, and preclude the possibility of star formation stopping this instant.

Maybe I'm missing something here haha...
 


Yeah it's a very interesting question ;] And a hard one indeed. It will be interesting to find out the answer.
 


Max.Planck said:
Hello,

I have a question from the Dutch Astrophysics Olympiad, which I can't solve.

" Is there mathematical proof that stars are still being formed? "

In previous questions, i had to derive the following equations, which i need to use in my answer for the question above:

L = σ * T4 * 4πR2

(Luminosity-Temperature relation of a star, where σ is the Boltzmann constant, T is temperature and R is the radius of the star)

t = life time of sun * (M/Msun)-2,6

(where t equals the life time of a type V star and M equals mass)

Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks,

Max.Planck

lets think about it...
Luminosity is the amount of energy released by time...
and that life time you found I suppose is the time that the star spend in the Main Sequence, right? so actually if you find some stars, that you measure its luminosity and with this you would calculate that it would actually spend some Myears in the MS, so it means that they are younger than the Sun and actually stars are being created. So maybe, yes you can proove it mathematically, but I don't have here a paper and a pencil to write down things, but I think it is possible, with this 2 relations
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
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...
Back
Top