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

[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.

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.