Stars Have a Weight Limit

Mike writes "Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers made the first direct measurement within our Milky Way Galaxy, and concluded stars cannot get any larger than about 150 times the mass of our sun. The astronomers used the Hubble to probe the Arches cluster, the densest in our galaxy. This finding takes astronomers closer to understanding the complex star formation process. It also gives the strongest backing yet to the notion stars have a weight limit."

Comments

150 solar mass -- not a hard limit

[helioquake]

I've said this on other forums but...

That 150 solar mass limit is not a hard limit. There will be some statistical probability to find a star greater than 150 solar mass. Figer's finding indicates that he could not find a star any more massive than 130 solar mass (in the Archer cluster? is that the pistol star again?).

This will be an observational constraint for stellar model parameter. Any future stellar evolution theory has to take into account that there are very few number of stars that have a mass greater than 130 solar mass, and none above 150 solar.

[Hey, some stellar evolution scientists would tell you today that there can't be a star any more massive than 80 solar mass! This topic is still debated for its accuracy. So take it with a grain of salt.]

Re:150 solar mass -- not a hard limit

[4of12]

That 150 solar mass limit is not a hard limit.

Bottom of TFA also cautions that.

So, all this prompts me to come up more stupid questions of

• what the lower mass limits are, or, more generally,
• what does the star mass distribution function look like?
• How does that star mass distribution function vary or correlate with star age?
• Has anyone come up with theoretical models for energy production in stars that explains the distribution of observed star masses and observed star energy output?

OK, I'll stop asking questions now.