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

Disagree

[Ghetto_D]

I disagree, Stars have no weight limit

http://www.starjones.com/

//I'm awful, I know

Proven false

[Dram]

Clearly Kirstie Alley is proving this false.

Else

[Dolly_Llama]

concluded stars cannot get any larger than about 150 times the mass of our sun.

Else they have to pay for two seats.

Just think, won't be able to say this much longer:

[sgant]

"Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope...

Yeah, in the very near future, they'll say "wow, if only we had an orbiting telescope..."

Back to the stone-ages for us!

hmmm

[crimson_1190]

I think Anna Nichole smith has proved that one wrong. she hasn't lost weight, mearly collapsed in on herself

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.

Re:150 solar mass -- not a hard limit

[helioquake]

You should look up the Nature article. The author himself is more cautious in the main text (c.f., his abstract says a bit firmly). And you will understand why the number 150 solar mass came about.

Re:150 solar mass -- not a hard limit

[wanerious]

Those are excellent questions:

a) Lower limits are roughly 1/20 solar mass. Less mass than this can't product the temperatures and densities needed for hydrogen fusion.

b) roughly the population dies off as M^{-2.5}, with some hard cut-off at high and low mass. There are many more low- than high-mass stars.

c) Age goes roughly as M^{-3.5} or so. High mass stars don't live very long at all.

d) Yes! Not only energy output, but elemental abundance evolution. That was my thesis.

Article says

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Regarding the cluster that was studied:

"It resides 25,000 light-years away from Earth in our galaxy's hub"

Ahhh, it's an unswitched star topology network.

well

[Joe the Lesser]

Wouldn't any accumulation of mass about that size that's not a star be a black hole?

And the larger the star the shorter it's life span, so if a star gathers too much mass in it's forming stages will it just become a black hole beforehand or lose weight and then begins it's short life span normally?

Re:Just think, won't be able to say this much long

[sgant]

Wow, how did this get modded as a troll? Are there mods out there that wish for the demise of Hubble or something? This is a very real thing that's happening and it's going to be a tragic loss.

I rank the success of Hubble right up there with Apollo in terms of NASA's crowning moments.

Hey, there is a primary article at Hubble Site

[ekuns]

A better read than the ./ article reference is an article at hubble site.

Small correction...

[MattHaffner]

A white dwarf is the remnant from a low to mid-mass star (less than about 10 solar masses). White dwarves do not go supernova unless they have a very close binary companion that begins to dump mass onto its surface.

As a side note, white dwarf+companion supernova have characterstics in their spectra that are different from those of a single massive star collapse. As a result, they are distinguished by the labels Type Ia (for the WD binary SN) and Type II (for most single massive star SN), Ib, and Ic (for oddball stars that have been modified before the SN occurs). The labels are a bit strange because SN were classified by spectra before the explanation for the difference in their spectra existed.

Finally, although I'm not an expert in massive star formation, I think the 120-150 solar mass limit is not from a fast-burning argument, but from an argument that arises from looking at how such a massive system evolves dynamically in the early part of its life. Most massive stars have significant "winds" that slowly shed material from their envelops right from the start. It may be that such a process in stars with a chance to get larger end up disrupting the accretion process too fast.