Astronomers detect 'monster star'

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
Darth Ruinus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1400
Joined: 2007-04-02 12:02pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Darth Ruinus »

BBC News
By Jonathan Amos
Science correspondent, BBC News
One of the objects, known simply as R136a1, is the most massive ever found.

The star is seen to have a mass about 265 times that of our own Sun; but the latest modelling work suggests at birth it could have been bigger, still.

Perhaps as much as 320 times that of the Sun, says Professor Paul Crowther from Sheffield University, UK.

"If it replaced the Sun in our Solar System, it would outshine [it] by as much as the Sun currently outshines the full Moon," the astronomer told BBC News.

The stars were identified by Crowther's team using a combination of new observations on the Very Large Telescope facility in Chile and data gathered previously with the Hubble Space Telescope.

One of the objects, known simply as R136a1, is the most massive ever found.

The star is seen to have a mass about 265 times that of our own Sun; but the latest modelling work suggests at birth it could have been bigger, still.

Perhaps as much as 320 times that of the Sun, says Professor Paul Crowther from Sheffield University, UK.

"If it replaced the Sun in our Solar System, it would outshine [it] by as much as the Sun currently outshines the full Moon," the astronomer told BBC News.

The stars were identified by Crowther's team using a combination of new observations on the Very Large Telescope facility in Chile and data gathered previously with the Hubble Space Telescope.

R136, a cluster of young, massive and hot stars (ESO). Astronomer Maggie Aderin-Pocock explains why the discovery is significant
The group studied the NGC 3603 and RMC 136a clusters - regions of space where thick clouds of gas and dust are collapsing into even denser clumps.

In these places, huge stars ignite to burn brief but brilliant lives before exploding as supernovas to seed the Universe with heavy elements.

NGC 3603 is relatively close in cosmic terms - just 22,000 light-years distant. RMC 136a (more often nicknamed R136) is slightly further away, and is sited within one of our neighbouring galaxies, the Large Magellanic Cloud, some 165,000 light-years away.

The team found several stars with surface temperatures over 40,000 degrees - more than seven times hotter than our Sun.

The research shows these young stellar objects to be unbelievably bright, truly massive and also extremely wide - perhaps 30 times the radius of our Sun in the case of R136a1.

Up close the stars would look a mess, however. Unlike our Sun which appears as a defined disc on the sky, the giants identified by Professor Crowther and colleagues would be losing so much material through powerful winds from their puffed up atmospheres that they would have a fuzzy look about them.

One thing seems for sure - no planets would exist in orbit about them.

"Planets take longer to form than these stars take to live and die. Even if there were planets, there would be no astronomers on them because the night sky would be almost as bright as the day in these clusters," Professor Crowther joked.

Up close the stars would look a mess, however. Unlike our Sun which appears as a defined disc on the sky, the giants identified by Professor Crowther and colleagues would be losing so much material through powerful winds from their puffed up atmospheres that they would have a fuzzy look about them.

One thing seems for sure - no planets would exist in orbit about them.

"Planets take longer to form than these stars take to live and die. Even if there were planets, there would be no astronomers on them because the night sky would be almost as bright as the day in these clusters," Professor Crowther joked.
"I don't believe in man made global warming because God promised to never again destroy the earth with water. He sent the rainbow as a sign."
- Sean Hannity Forums user Avi

"And BTW the concept of carbon based life is only a hypothesis based on the abiogensis theory, and there is no clear evidence for it."
-Mazen707 informing me about the facts on carbon-based life.
Lief
Transphobic Ignoramus
Posts: 119
Joined: 2010-06-03 02:48am
Location: London, England

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Lief »

Cool :D I suspect larger are out there.

BTW your quoting is fucked up man.
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Serafina »

Lief wrote:Cool :D I suspect larger are out there.

BTW your quoting is fucked up man.
How? Seems fine to me.

Anyway, this is not the largest star around. Not by a longshot, in fact
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
Kanastrous
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6464
Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
Location: SoCal

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Kanastrous »

Serafina wrote: How? Seems fine to me.
The repeating blocks of text?
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Serafina »

Kanastrous wrote:
Serafina wrote: How? Seems fine to me.
The repeating blocks of text?
Oh. Now i see it.
Well, i suppose that's what i am getting for scanning the post for information rather than reading it.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
RRoan
Padawan Learner
Posts: 222
Joined: 2005-04-16 09:44pm

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by RRoan »

Serafina wrote:
Lief wrote:Cool :D I suspect larger are out there.

BTW your quoting is fucked up man.
How? Seems fine to me.

Anyway, this is not the largest star around. Not by a longshot, in fact
That depends on how you define "large". Sure, VY Canis Majoris and the other lawlhuge stars have larger diameters, but these stars are all far more massive than VY Canis Majoris, which only has between 15 and 25 times the mass of the sun (yes, i pulled the mass numbers from wiki, but both the upper and lower bounds are sourced).
User avatar
CJvR
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2926
Joined: 2002-07-11 06:36pm
Location: K.P.E.V. 1

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by CJvR »

Wow, that is one massive star.

Just how much mass can a star contain before it simply implodes into a black hole regardless of the fusion reaction? Or does the energy from the core blow off the outer layers before that can happen?
I thought Roman candles meant they were imported. - Kelly Bundy
12 yards long, two lanes wide it's 65 tons of American pride, Canyonero! - Simpsons
Support the KKK environmental program - keep the Arctic white!
Lief
Transphobic Ignoramus
Posts: 119
Joined: 2010-06-03 02:48am
Location: London, England

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Lief »

Betelgeuse is the best.

As its name is excellent :)
User avatar
Mayabird
Storytime!
Posts: 5970
Joined: 2003-11-26 04:31pm
Location: IA > GA

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Mayabird »

Interesting. IIRC, theoretically stars shouldn't be able to stay much past 250 solar masses or so because if they got bigger they would expel a huge amount of mass quickly and would knock themselves down below the limit. Which seems to be the case here:
Up close the stars would look a mess, however. Unlike our Sun which appears as a defined disc on the sky, the giants identified by Professor Crowther and colleagues would be losing so much material through powerful winds from their puffed up atmospheres that they would have a fuzzy look about them.
They are very big babies.
DPDarkPrimus is my boyfriend!

SDNW4 Nation: The Refuge And, on Nova Terra, Al-Stan the Totally and Completely Honest and Legitimate Weapons Dealer and Used Starship Salesman slept on a bed made of money, with a blaster under his pillow and his sombrero pulled over his face. This is to say, he slept very well indeed.
User avatar
Temujin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1300
Joined: 2010-03-28 07:08pm
Location: Occupying Wall Street (In Spirit)

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Temujin »

VY Canis Majoris is at the end of its life, R136a1 has been a monster since birth.

I wonder what the level of metallicity is? I've heard that metallicity can effect just how massive a star can get before becoming unstable.
Image
Mr. Harley: Your impatience is quite understandable.
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry... I wish it were otherwise.

"I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe.
If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other." – Frankenstein's Creature on the glacier[/size]
Lief
Transphobic Ignoramus
Posts: 119
Joined: 2010-06-03 02:48am
Location: London, England

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Lief »

How long can a star stay in its 'puffed up' state? Maybe we are just catching some at the right time.
User avatar
Serafina
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5246
Joined: 2009-01-07 05:37pm
Location: Germany

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Serafina »

Lief wrote:How long can a star stay in its 'puffed up' state? Maybe we are just catching some at the right time.
As a rule of thumb, the bigger they get the lower their lifespan. Megastars exist for a couple of million years before they go supernova, an blink of an eye compared to the multiple Sagans ("billions and billions") of stars like our Sun.
SoS:NBA GALE Force
"Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent." - Sir Nitram
"The world owes you nothing but painful lessons" - CaptainChewbacca
"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of a mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - Wilhelm Stekel
"In 1969 it was easier to send a man to the Moon than to have the public accept a homosexual" - Broomstick

Divine Administration - of Gods and Bureaucracy (Worm/Exalted)
User avatar
starslayer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 731
Joined: 2008-04-04 08:40pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by starslayer »

CJvR wrote:Just how much mass can a star contain before it simply implodes into a black hole regardless of the fusion reaction? Or does the energy from the core blow off the outer layers before that can happen?
A star cannot simply implode to form a black hole, no matter how much mass it starts with, except under very special circumstances. What ends up happening in these extremely massive, low metallicity (this part is very important) stars is that at a certain point in their life cycle, their cores become so hot that the blackbody photons are, on average, able to pair produce; that is, spontaneously transform into an electron and a positron. If the core gets hotter still, enough of the background photons are able to do so that it becomes a huge energy sink, and the remaining radiation pressure is nowhere near enough to hold up the star. The core begins to collapse, but at a certain point it becomes degenerate, and runaway nuclear burning occurs, blowing the star apart, leaving no remnant behind. This happens in stars above about 100-130 solar masses or so.

Above 20 solar masses, the core collapse ends up creating a black hole, while above 40-50 solar masses, the entire star collapses in on itself to form a black hole, with no supernova explosion (source: Fryer, Chris L. THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 522:413-418, 1999 September 1).
Temujin wrote:I wonder what the level of metallicity is? I've heard that metallicity can effect just how massive a star can get before becoming unstable.
Yes, metallicity plays an important role in that. In relatively metal rich stars (Pop I and II), there are two possible processes by which hydrogen can be fused: the proton-proton chain, and the CNO cycle. The proton-proton chain requires only protons (so, only hydrogen), and has a lower temperature floor than the CNO cycle. It also has a temperature dependence of ~T4. The CNO cycle requires carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen to be present (hence the name) as catalysts, and requires a higher temperature to really get going than the p-p chain. However, it has a temperature dependence of ~T16, so it overtakes p-p fusion in Pop I stars of more than 1.5 solar masses. Since the CNO process has such a high temperature dependence, energy production ramps up enormously fast the more massive the star is. This has the consequence of lowering the maximum possible mass of the star. I would bet RMC 136a1 is very metal poor, and is generating its energy through p-p fusion (or at least did; I'm sure it's burning helium or carbon at this point).

Now why do we talk about mass limits and such in the first place? Basically, a star is a tug of war between gravity trying to crush it down to a point, and the outward radiation pressure trying to blow the star apart. However, there are limits in either direction of mass. Too low, and not enough heat is released via collapse and fusion, and the star collapses. Too high, and so much energy is released from both the initial gravitational collapse of the progenitor cloud and the star's internal fusion reactions that the radiation pressure does indeed blow the star apart. This upper limit is referred to as the Eddington limit or luminosity, after Sir Arthur Eddington, who first calculated it. It's actually not that hard to derive from the equilibrium conditions of a ball of hot gas, but in any case, the Eddington luminosity LEdd = 4πcGM/κ, where c and G have their usual meanings, M is the mass of the star, and κ is the opacity. We can also write this in terms of solar properties: LEdd = 3.2E4*(M/M)(κes/κ)L. Note that in very massive stars, the gas is almost entirely ionized, and the opacity is largely due to electron scattering, so that κes/κ ~1.
User avatar
PeZook
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13237
Joined: 2002-07-18 06:08pm
Location: Poland

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by PeZook »

One day I will make a trip there and take alook myself.

Mark my words! :D

But more seriously, we've been making some incredible leaps in astronomical science lately. Another sign of exponentially increasing computer power at work: it allows us to do stuff like analyze gravitational tides acting on stars light years away so that we can find planets!

That's just one symptom. Just wait until the new orbital telescope goes up and start delivering data. Yummy!
Image
JULY 20TH 1969 - The day the entire world was looking up

It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- NEIL ARMSTRONG, MISSION COMMANDER, APOLLO 11

Signature dedicated to the greatest achievement of mankind.

MILDLY DERANGED PHYSICIST does not mind BREAKING the SOUND BARRIER, because it is INSURED. - Simon_Jester considering the problems of hypersonic flight for Team L.A.M.E.
User avatar
Omeganian
Jedi Knight
Posts: 547
Joined: 2008-03-08 10:38am
Location: Israel

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Omeganian »

"If it replaced the Sun in our Solar System, it would outshine [it] by as much as the Sun currently outshines the full Moon," the astronomer told BBC News.
I believe that's an order of magnitude understatement at least.
Q: How are children made in the TNG era Federation?

A: With power couplings. To explain, you shut down the power to the lights, and then, in the darkness, you have the usual TOS era coupling.
User avatar
starslayer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 731
Joined: 2008-04-04 08:40pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by starslayer »

No it's not. The full Moon is magnitude -13, while the Sun is -27. Every five magnitudes represents a 100-fold difference in brightness, so the Sun is about one million times brighter than the Moon. RMC 136a1 has a luminosity of about 4.5E6 L, so his statement is correct to within an order of magnitude.
User avatar
Omeganian
Jedi Knight
Posts: 547
Joined: 2008-03-08 10:38am
Location: Israel

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Omeganian »

The difference is 14 magnitudes, which makes a million divided by 2.5.
Q: How are children made in the TNG era Federation?

A: With power couplings. To explain, you shut down the power to the lights, and then, in the darkness, you have the usual TOS era coupling.
User avatar
starslayer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 731
Joined: 2008-04-04 08:40pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by starslayer »

Omeganian wrote:The difference is 14 magnitudes, which makes a million divided by 2.5.
Right, which is about one million in astronomy land. Factors of two really don't matter much in the big picture, and often get ignored when making statements like he did.
User avatar
Omeganian
Jedi Knight
Posts: 547
Joined: 2008-03-08 10:38am
Location: Israel

Re: Astronomers detect 'monster star'

Post by Omeganian »

it's 4.5 million vs 400 000, which is one order of magnitude. Like I said. And the 400 000 difference between Sun and Moon is a very well known figure.
Q: How are children made in the TNG era Federation?

A: With power couplings. To explain, you shut down the power to the lights, and then, in the darkness, you have the usual TOS era coupling.
Post Reply