It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Nursery Needed: Some Massive Stars Seem to Be Born Alone?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The most massive stars in the universe can form essentially anywhere, even without other stars nearby, new observations suggest.

The scale of these hefty stars, which range from 20 to 150 times as massive as Earth's sun, is generally thought to be determined by the environment around them – usually a dense cluster of stars. The bigger the cluster, the more gas and dust available to forge giant stars.

The new observations, made using the Hubble Space Telescope, support the opposing theory — that the most massive stars can be born randomly across the universe, including in isolation and in very small clusters.

www.space.com...

So now Stars once thought to grow only in stellar matter clouds can form from out of no where.
I think the more learned of these Lights will help many to understand better their significance within the darkness.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

How do these types of Stars obtain mass then.... Anyone? Mabey from the unseen dark matter and energies befor these energies become visual to the photon viewing spectrum?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
i dont know, but i do know the sun and stars are one hell of a fascinating thing and i think a lot more is to be studied about them!!
s&f



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by scoobyrob
 


I agree I think the days of them being just energy celestial object is closing and their real powers are going to be shared with the many who can consciously interact with them.

Imagine if you had the ability to sense/see/locate through all the stars other life forms in their natural habitats. Even EVOL lifeforms couldnt hide. Just a thought and thanks for the comment.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
imho anything is possible, we have bearly scratched the surface in terms of understanding this universe we live in! weather or not human beings have the mental capasity or non self distructive force within us to eventually get to that stage i dont know but interesting times we live in and ahead! just hope it goes in the right direction!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
well there are several theorys that are constantly predicitng the structures of the universe that seem to baffle the current cosmological theory.

heres one of the most likely.

Thunderbolt of The Gods



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I have a "theory," of sorts, that essentially inverts the presumptions about stellar formation. I've only mentioned it a few times because I am, by no means, very familiar or educated with known and theorized mechanics involved.

The general assumption of star formation is that a large cloud of gas begins to coalesce into a mass that eventually collapses in on itself and begins a sustained fusion process. Being an electronics person and highly interested in the physics of plasma, I'm not entirely sold on the idea - it would seem a strong magnetic field would be necessary before the fusion process began, and that a gas is simply far too diffuse to coalesce without some far more dense material to trigger the reaction.

Again - I'm not an astrophysicist, and am not 100% familiar with the current model of star formation - but there's a lot there that seems to be lacking, particularly on the macroscopic time-scale. Theoretically, there should be far more mass tied up in heavier elements (like silicon and iron) than is left over as hydrogen. This does not appear to be the case (unless it is that mysterious "dark matter" phenomena).

Anyway - my original idea involved thinking about what the collapse of a cosmic-scale singularity would appear like. Relativity is a real brain-buster, here - but the overall idea is that as mass is lost, the event horizon's surface area relative to the mass grows exponentially. What eventually ends up coming off of the event horizon is intense particle and electromagnetic radiation. This would result in energy-to-matter conversion. However, the gravitational and electromagnetic properties of the singularity would keep a wide range of the particle radiation isolated and eventually build a layer of matter and trigger secondary reactions (such as fusion). For a while, the two would stabilize - the external reactions 'feeding' the singularity long enough to stave off further evaporation for a while. As time continued, however, the singularity would evaporate further.

The surface-area of the event-horizon is key. As the singularity loses mass, the surface area shrinks (but inversely proportional to mass) - this means less surface area to absorb radiation from the star surrounding it (staving off further evaporation) but more surface-area/mass to radiate energy into the star.

Eventually, the relationship grows unstable as the singularity enters its final stage and evaporates its remaining mass as energy (a supernova). This may happen to a smaller extent many times over the life of a star (a rapid sequence of evaporation, but not to completely evaporate the singularity).

Thus - heavier elements (such as iron and up) would be synthesized early in the life of a star, while the lighter elements would be synthesized and ejected in the much higher energy of a smaller and more rapidly-evaporating singularity.

This would, also, not necessarily be meant to replace the current model, but add on to it. After the singularity loses coherency, it would likely leave behind a dense mass to restart the process anew, and heavier elements ejected from previous reactions could coalesce and form large stars from other gaseous remnants.

As applied to this thread - these stars could have been singularities ejected from earlier cosmic events (such as the "big bang"). However, if we presume the concept of the "big bang" to be plausible (some mystical way of injecting a massive amount of energy into the universe) as a beginning - it could also still be plausible to this day - and new 'bangs' occur in the form of spontaneously created singularities that then evaporate to form star clusters later on in 'life.'

It is, essentially, an inversion of the standard model of star formation - and, as stated earlier, is not intended to be exclusive - but additive (added into the current concepts).

However, it could be completely off its rocker. I would like the opportunity to simulate such a scenario as completely as possible (including relativistic effects of ejecta velocity and gravitational effects), as such will likely be possible within my lifetime (traveling to distant stars or into them, on the other hand, may not).



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join