B Number of stars in the universe over time

AI Thread Summary
The number of stars in the universe has changed significantly over time, with star formation peaking around 10 billion years ago and declining since then. Initially, the first stars formed a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, with a tendency for more low-mass stars to be created than high-mass ones. The lifespan of stars varies greatly based on their mass, with massive stars living only millions of years while smaller stars can last up to a trillion years. As a result, the universe now contains an increasing number of low-mass stars and stellar remnants like white dwarfs and black holes. For further understanding, recommended resources include studies on Star Formation Rate and stellar evolution.
BL4CKB0X97
Messages
112
Reaction score
18
Hello.Long time,No See.

I am just wondering if anyone can point be in the correct direction. Preferably with a link or a book that I should read as i would like to understand, not just know the answer.

I am just wondering how much the number of stars in the universe has changed over time. Also, has the type and mass of the stars changed as the universe got cooler? I understand the basic stages of our universe, but I presume their is a significant amount of maths to it as well. For instance, is there a Formula for number of star over time (I'm going to hazard a guess that is an expontial curve)?

Thanks!

Also, if someone is willing to let me bounce stupid questions off them as PM's(considerably less embarrassing that public ones) that be great! Let me know.

Oh, and I have been accepted to start an Physics degree in september! Hooray!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Congratulations on being accepted!

It is a complex question. The first stars are believed to have formed a few hundred million years after the big bang. Studies like this paper have attempted to measure the Star Formation Rate(SFR) as a function of time, and have concluded that star formation peaked around 10 billion years ago (about 3.7 billion years after the big bang) and has been steadily declining since, as shown in the figure below, which is copied from that paper. When stars are formed, more low mass stars tend to be formed than high mass stars. Also, how long stars live is a strong function of how massive they are. Massive stars 10-100 times larger than the sun only live for millions of years, while stars less massive than the sun can live for as long as a trillion years. So as time goes by, there are more and more low mass stars and "stellar remnants" - objects like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and back holes which are what is left over after a massive star lives and dies. Here are a couple of good Wikipedia links to get you going:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_mass_function
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

Feel free to PM me with questions.

SFR.png
 

Attachments

  • SFR.png
    SFR.png
    28.5 KB · Views: 569
  • Like
Likes Spinnor and BL4CKB0X97
Perfect! Thank you.
Edit: The link does not work but I found it with a google search anyway.
 
Last edited:

Thread 'Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?'

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...
View full post »
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Can the signal WOW be explained by the maser effect?'

This hypothesis of scientists about the origin of the mysterious signal WOW seems plausible only on a superficial examination. In fact, such a strong coherent radiation requires a powerful initiating factor, and the hydrogen atoms in the cloud themselves must be in an overexcited state in order to respond instantly. If the density of the initiating radiation is insufficient, then the atoms of the cloud will not receive it at once, some will receive it earlier, and some later. But then there...
View full post »

Similar threads

I The Heavier Elements: A Question About Their Abundance
Replies
28
Views
3K
B Star visible for longest time from Earth
Replies
6
Views
2K
B Distance of Stars / Size of the Universe calculation
Replies
6
Views
3K
I How Does the Size of Neutron Stars Compare to Black Holes?
Replies
48
Views
5K
B Neutron star 4U 1820-30 spins at 716 revolutions per second
Replies
0
Views
2K
I Nuclear reactions in the Sun and other topics on stars
Replies
49
Views
5K
B So, a black hole and an antimatter star bump into each other....
Replies
5
Views
2K
Stars in the early universe and stellar processes
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
B What happens to the Core of a main sequence star as additional mass is added?
Replies
42
Views
4K
I Low mass limit of a neutron star
Replies
26
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top