Limitation to mass of currently forming stars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Stars
AI Thread Summary
The claim that currently forming stars cannot exceed the mass of the Sun due to interactions with heavy elements is false. While heavy metals can impose an upper limit on star mass, this limit is significantly higher than one solar mass and varies based on the star's formation environment. Photons from young stars can ionize atoms but do not prevent the gravitational collapse necessary for star formation. Additionally, massive stars do exist and are formed relatively recently in cosmic terms, suggesting that the proposed mass limitation is not applicable. Overall, the discussion emphasizes that while radiation pressure plays a role, it does not entirely inhibit the formation of massive stars.
Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Is this true or false?

The state of our universe, as it is today, contains enough matter comprised of heavy elements, that the radiation from young stars will interact with this matter in such a way that it will be prevented from nearing the star, and thus the mass of the star, and all currently forming stars, will never be able to attain a mass as great as even our own sun.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Holocene said:
Is this true or false?

The state of our universe, as it is today, contains enough matter comprised of heavy elements, that the radiation from young stars will interact with this matter in such a way that it will be prevented from nearing the star, and thus the mass of the star, and all currently forming stars, will never be able to attain a mass as great as even our own sun.

False. Photons interacting with atoms may ionize the atoms, but have essentially no effect on the nuclei, which would fall in due to gravity.
 
Holocene said:
The state of our universe, as it is today, contains enough matter comprised of heavy elements, that the radiation from young stars will interact with this matter in such a way that it will be prevented from nearing the star, and thus the mass of the star, and all currently forming stars, will never be able to attain a mass as great as even our own sun.

It is false, but only because of the last bit, "will never be able to attain a mass as great as even our own sun". The presence of heavy metals is thought to impose an upper limit on the mass of newly-formed stars, but the limit is much higher than a solar mass and depends on upon the environment in which the star formed.


mathman said:
False. Photons interacting with atoms may ionize the atoms, but have essentially no effect on the nuclei, which would fall in due to gravity.

The photons have momentum, so there will be radiation pressure. Regardless of whether this pressure is imparted to the electrons, atoms, or ions, it can still act to prevent infall or blow material outwards because electromagnetic forces are constantly acting to keep the plasma neutral.
 
Stars more massive than the Sun tend to burn out in a few million years. Yet we observe pleantly of stars more massive than the Sun. This implies they were formed recently. So you can think of your question in a statistical sense. If this cut-off were real, what are the odds in this 15-billion-year-old universe that the cut-off was reached in the last few million years?
 
Last edited:
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...
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