Hottest Possible Hydrogen-Fusing StarsWhat is the largest hydrogen-burning star?What is the largest...
How can drunken, homicidal elves successfully conduct a wild hunt?
Is using haveibeenpwned to validate password strength rational?
Interview not reimboursed if offer is made but not accepted
What is the giant octopus in the torture chamber for?
A deadly disease, 95% of the population dead, suppresses or alters memory in unpredictable ways
How water is heavier than petrol eventhough its molecular weight less than petrol?
Is it a problem if <h4>, <h5> and <h6> are smaller than regular text?
Can an Aarakocra use a shield while flying?
How to officially communicate to a non-responsive colleague?
What's up with this leaf?
Genetic limitations to learn certain instruments
What's the largest optical telescope mirror ever put in space?
Passing multiple files through stdin (over ssh)
Was the output of the C64 SID chip 8 bit sound?
Compiling c files on ubuntu and using the executable on Windows
Why would future John risk sending back a T-800 to save his younger self?
Cross-dimension teleportation using command block or datapack?
Should I compare a std::string to "string" or "string"s?
PhD - Well known professor or well known school?
How to build suspense or so to establish and justify xenophobia of characters in the eyes of the reader?
Why doesn't Adrian Toomes give up Spider-Man's identity?
Soft question: Examples where lack of mathematical rigour cause security breaches?
How would a aircraft visually signal in distress?
Is open-sourcing the code of a webapp not recommended?
Hottest Possible Hydrogen-Fusing Stars
What is the largest hydrogen-burning star?What is the largest hydrogen-burning star?
$begingroup$
I guess this is more a question about stellar models than anything else. I was wondering what is predicted to be the hottest possible stars that would still be hydrogen-burning.
What complicates this more is that the most massive stars will probably only sit close to the main sequence (as very early O-type) for several thousand years before gaining a WNh spectrum despite still being relatively early in the lifetime. So I'll be somewhat more precise and ask what is the hottest possible star predicted at ZAMS that won't just blow itself apart by radiation pressure.
Also tangential to the topic but have there been any stars found with an O1 spectrum, and is this even a spectral type that has models made for it?
star temperature
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I guess this is more a question about stellar models than anything else. I was wondering what is predicted to be the hottest possible stars that would still be hydrogen-burning.
What complicates this more is that the most massive stars will probably only sit close to the main sequence (as very early O-type) for several thousand years before gaining a WNh spectrum despite still being relatively early in the lifetime. So I'll be somewhat more precise and ask what is the hottest possible star predicted at ZAMS that won't just blow itself apart by radiation pressure.
Also tangential to the topic but have there been any stars found with an O1 spectrum, and is this even a spectral type that has models made for it?
star temperature
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11594/… is basically a duplicate unless you don't know how hot an O3 star is. (About 50,000 K)
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
So ~50,000 K is about as hot as a ZAMS star can get? Is there a theoretical reason for this or have there just not been any stars observed with a hotter surface temp?
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I guess this is more a question about stellar models than anything else. I was wondering what is predicted to be the hottest possible stars that would still be hydrogen-burning.
What complicates this more is that the most massive stars will probably only sit close to the main sequence (as very early O-type) for several thousand years before gaining a WNh spectrum despite still being relatively early in the lifetime. So I'll be somewhat more precise and ask what is the hottest possible star predicted at ZAMS that won't just blow itself apart by radiation pressure.
Also tangential to the topic but have there been any stars found with an O1 spectrum, and is this even a spectral type that has models made for it?
star temperature
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
$endgroup$
I guess this is more a question about stellar models than anything else. I was wondering what is predicted to be the hottest possible stars that would still be hydrogen-burning.
What complicates this more is that the most massive stars will probably only sit close to the main sequence (as very early O-type) for several thousand years before gaining a WNh spectrum despite still being relatively early in the lifetime. So I'll be somewhat more precise and ask what is the hottest possible star predicted at ZAMS that won't just blow itself apart by radiation pressure.
Also tangential to the topic but have there been any stars found with an O1 spectrum, and is this even a spectral type that has models made for it?
star temperature
star temperature
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
asked 11 hours ago
ShroomZedShroomZed
385
385
$begingroup$
astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11594/… is basically a duplicate unless you don't know how hot an O3 star is. (About 50,000 K)
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
So ~50,000 K is about as hot as a ZAMS star can get? Is there a theoretical reason for this or have there just not been any stars observed with a hotter surface temp?
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11594/… is basically a duplicate unless you don't know how hot an O3 star is. (About 50,000 K)
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
So ~50,000 K is about as hot as a ZAMS star can get? Is there a theoretical reason for this or have there just not been any stars observed with a hotter surface temp?
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11594/… is basically a duplicate unless you don't know how hot an O3 star is. (About 50,000 K)
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11594/… is basically a duplicate unless you don't know how hot an O3 star is. (About 50,000 K)
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
So ~50,000 K is about as hot as a ZAMS star can get? Is there a theoretical reason for this or have there just not been any stars observed with a hotter surface temp?
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
So ~50,000 K is about as hot as a ZAMS star can get? Is there a theoretical reason for this or have there just not been any stars observed with a hotter surface temp?
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
8 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
An answer to your question is contained within What is the largest hydrogen-burning star? The hottest observed main sequence stars are of type O3V, with photospheric temperatures of about 50,000 K.
However, it is indeed possible that hotter main sequence stars may exist in the present-day universe, but have simply evolved into Wolf-Rayet stars (and lost a lot of mass). Indeed, Crowther et al. (2010) claim to see evidence for such objects in the cluster R136 in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
How hot could such objects be? A theoretical study by Bromm et al. (2001) suggests that very massive, metal-rich present-day stars might reach 65,000 K at a few hundred solar masses (see their Fig.1).
The hottest zero age main sequence stars ever would probably be very massive ($sim 1000M_{odot}$) ultra-metal poor, or even metal-free population III stars. These actually begin life as He burning stars until they produce enough carbon to commence the CNO H-burning cycle. Equation 6 and Fig.1 in Bromm et al. (2001), who provide a theoretical study of such objects, suggests effective temperatures of about $1.1times 10^{5}$ K for such stars, with very little detailed dependence on mass and metallicity.
I guess such a star might be classified as O1, but according to Bromm et al. they are basically blackbodies once the mass exceeds about 300 solar masses.
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I've never heard of stars starting at a He-burning phase so that's extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to state this.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ShroomZed It makes sense, though. The first stage of the p-p chain is really slow because the probability of diprotium converting to deuterium is really small. Most of the time, it quickly falls apart into a pair of protons.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've heard that for every 10^26 times two protons interact in the core, only one successful reaction occurs in the sun. For a massive metal free star, CNO cycle is the only way to go.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
3 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The reason is that the pp-chain temperature dependence is sufficiently low that the temperature reaches He-burning temperatures before the collapsing star can be stabilised. Once the C abundance reaches a threshold, the CNO cycle exceeds the He burning rate. @ShroomZed
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32146%2fhottest-possible-hydrogen-fusing-stars%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
An answer to your question is contained within What is the largest hydrogen-burning star? The hottest observed main sequence stars are of type O3V, with photospheric temperatures of about 50,000 K.
However, it is indeed possible that hotter main sequence stars may exist in the present-day universe, but have simply evolved into Wolf-Rayet stars (and lost a lot of mass). Indeed, Crowther et al. (2010) claim to see evidence for such objects in the cluster R136 in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
How hot could such objects be? A theoretical study by Bromm et al. (2001) suggests that very massive, metal-rich present-day stars might reach 65,000 K at a few hundred solar masses (see their Fig.1).
The hottest zero age main sequence stars ever would probably be very massive ($sim 1000M_{odot}$) ultra-metal poor, or even metal-free population III stars. These actually begin life as He burning stars until they produce enough carbon to commence the CNO H-burning cycle. Equation 6 and Fig.1 in Bromm et al. (2001), who provide a theoretical study of such objects, suggests effective temperatures of about $1.1times 10^{5}$ K for such stars, with very little detailed dependence on mass and metallicity.
I guess such a star might be classified as O1, but according to Bromm et al. they are basically blackbodies once the mass exceeds about 300 solar masses.
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I've never heard of stars starting at a He-burning phase so that's extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to state this.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ShroomZed It makes sense, though. The first stage of the p-p chain is really slow because the probability of diprotium converting to deuterium is really small. Most of the time, it quickly falls apart into a pair of protons.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've heard that for every 10^26 times two protons interact in the core, only one successful reaction occurs in the sun. For a massive metal free star, CNO cycle is the only way to go.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
3 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The reason is that the pp-chain temperature dependence is sufficiently low that the temperature reaches He-burning temperatures before the collapsing star can be stabilised. Once the C abundance reaches a threshold, the CNO cycle exceeds the He burning rate. @ShroomZed
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An answer to your question is contained within What is the largest hydrogen-burning star? The hottest observed main sequence stars are of type O3V, with photospheric temperatures of about 50,000 K.
However, it is indeed possible that hotter main sequence stars may exist in the present-day universe, but have simply evolved into Wolf-Rayet stars (and lost a lot of mass). Indeed, Crowther et al. (2010) claim to see evidence for such objects in the cluster R136 in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
How hot could such objects be? A theoretical study by Bromm et al. (2001) suggests that very massive, metal-rich present-day stars might reach 65,000 K at a few hundred solar masses (see their Fig.1).
The hottest zero age main sequence stars ever would probably be very massive ($sim 1000M_{odot}$) ultra-metal poor, or even metal-free population III stars. These actually begin life as He burning stars until they produce enough carbon to commence the CNO H-burning cycle. Equation 6 and Fig.1 in Bromm et al. (2001), who provide a theoretical study of such objects, suggests effective temperatures of about $1.1times 10^{5}$ K for such stars, with very little detailed dependence on mass and metallicity.
I guess such a star might be classified as O1, but according to Bromm et al. they are basically blackbodies once the mass exceeds about 300 solar masses.
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I've never heard of stars starting at a He-burning phase so that's extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to state this.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ShroomZed It makes sense, though. The first stage of the p-p chain is really slow because the probability of diprotium converting to deuterium is really small. Most of the time, it quickly falls apart into a pair of protons.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've heard that for every 10^26 times two protons interact in the core, only one successful reaction occurs in the sun. For a massive metal free star, CNO cycle is the only way to go.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
3 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The reason is that the pp-chain temperature dependence is sufficiently low that the temperature reaches He-burning temperatures before the collapsing star can be stabilised. Once the C abundance reaches a threshold, the CNO cycle exceeds the He burning rate. @ShroomZed
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
An answer to your question is contained within What is the largest hydrogen-burning star? The hottest observed main sequence stars are of type O3V, with photospheric temperatures of about 50,000 K.
However, it is indeed possible that hotter main sequence stars may exist in the present-day universe, but have simply evolved into Wolf-Rayet stars (and lost a lot of mass). Indeed, Crowther et al. (2010) claim to see evidence for such objects in the cluster R136 in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
How hot could such objects be? A theoretical study by Bromm et al. (2001) suggests that very massive, metal-rich present-day stars might reach 65,000 K at a few hundred solar masses (see their Fig.1).
The hottest zero age main sequence stars ever would probably be very massive ($sim 1000M_{odot}$) ultra-metal poor, or even metal-free population III stars. These actually begin life as He burning stars until they produce enough carbon to commence the CNO H-burning cycle. Equation 6 and Fig.1 in Bromm et al. (2001), who provide a theoretical study of such objects, suggests effective temperatures of about $1.1times 10^{5}$ K for such stars, with very little detailed dependence on mass and metallicity.
I guess such a star might be classified as O1, but according to Bromm et al. they are basically blackbodies once the mass exceeds about 300 solar masses.
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
$endgroup$
An answer to your question is contained within What is the largest hydrogen-burning star? The hottest observed main sequence stars are of type O3V, with photospheric temperatures of about 50,000 K.
However, it is indeed possible that hotter main sequence stars may exist in the present-day universe, but have simply evolved into Wolf-Rayet stars (and lost a lot of mass). Indeed, Crowther et al. (2010) claim to see evidence for such objects in the cluster R136 in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
How hot could such objects be? A theoretical study by Bromm et al. (2001) suggests that very massive, metal-rich present-day stars might reach 65,000 K at a few hundred solar masses (see their Fig.1).
The hottest zero age main sequence stars ever would probably be very massive ($sim 1000M_{odot}$) ultra-metal poor, or even metal-free population III stars. These actually begin life as He burning stars until they produce enough carbon to commence the CNO H-burning cycle. Equation 6 and Fig.1 in Bromm et al. (2001), who provide a theoretical study of such objects, suggests effective temperatures of about $1.1times 10^{5}$ K for such stars, with very little detailed dependence on mass and metallicity.
I guess such a star might be classified as O1, but according to Bromm et al. they are basically blackbodies once the mass exceeds about 300 solar masses.
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
answered 8 hours ago
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
55.6k4116183
55.6k4116183
1
$begingroup$
I've never heard of stars starting at a He-burning phase so that's extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to state this.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ShroomZed It makes sense, though. The first stage of the p-p chain is really slow because the probability of diprotium converting to deuterium is really small. Most of the time, it quickly falls apart into a pair of protons.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've heard that for every 10^26 times two protons interact in the core, only one successful reaction occurs in the sun. For a massive metal free star, CNO cycle is the only way to go.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
3 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The reason is that the pp-chain temperature dependence is sufficiently low that the temperature reaches He-burning temperatures before the collapsing star can be stabilised. Once the C abundance reaches a threshold, the CNO cycle exceeds the He burning rate. @ShroomZed
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I've never heard of stars starting at a He-burning phase so that's extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to state this.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ShroomZed It makes sense, though. The first stage of the p-p chain is really slow because the probability of diprotium converting to deuterium is really small. Most of the time, it quickly falls apart into a pair of protons.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've heard that for every 10^26 times two protons interact in the core, only one successful reaction occurs in the sun. For a massive metal free star, CNO cycle is the only way to go.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
3 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
The reason is that the pp-chain temperature dependence is sufficiently low that the temperature reaches He-burning temperatures before the collapsing star can be stabilised. Once the C abundance reaches a threshold, the CNO cycle exceeds the He burning rate. @ShroomZed
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I've never heard of stars starting at a He-burning phase so that's extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to state this.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I've never heard of stars starting at a He-burning phase so that's extremely interesting. Thank you for taking the time to state this.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ShroomZed It makes sense, though. The first stage of the p-p chain is really slow because the probability of diprotium converting to deuterium is really small. Most of the time, it quickly falls apart into a pair of protons.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ShroomZed It makes sense, though. The first stage of the p-p chain is really slow because the probability of diprotium converting to deuterium is really small. Most of the time, it quickly falls apart into a pair of protons.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've heard that for every 10^26 times two protons interact in the core, only one successful reaction occurs in the sun. For a massive metal free star, CNO cycle is the only way to go.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I've heard that for every 10^26 times two protons interact in the core, only one successful reaction occurs in the sun. For a massive metal free star, CNO cycle is the only way to go.
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
3 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
The reason is that the pp-chain temperature dependence is sufficiently low that the temperature reaches He-burning temperatures before the collapsing star can be stabilised. Once the C abundance reaches a threshold, the CNO cycle exceeds the He burning rate. @ShroomZed
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
The reason is that the pp-chain temperature dependence is sufficiently low that the temperature reaches He-burning temperatures before the collapsing star can be stabilised. Once the C abundance reaches a threshold, the CNO cycle exceeds the He burning rate. @ShroomZed
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32146%2fhottest-possible-hydrogen-fusing-stars%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11594/… is basically a duplicate unless you don't know how hot an O3 star is. (About 50,000 K)
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
So ~50,000 K is about as hot as a ZAMS star can get? Is there a theoretical reason for this or have there just not been any stars observed with a hotter surface temp?
$endgroup$
– ShroomZed
8 hours ago