Timeline for Why do we talk about metallicity in stars instead of more specific elements?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2021 at 15:03 | vote | accept | zucculent | ||
| Aug 23, 2021 at 20:56 | history | edited | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 98 characters in body
|
| Aug 23, 2021 at 19:02 | comment | added | Peter Erwin | "Mg is produced faster in supernovae than elements like Fe and Ni, which arise from white dwarf progenitors" -- nitpick: you mean "Mg is produced faster in massive-star, core-collapse supernovae". Some readers might not understand that "white dwarf progenitors" refers to Type Ia supernovae. | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 15:55 | history | edited | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 354 characters in body
|
| Aug 23, 2021 at 15:29 | history | edited | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 485 characters in body
|
| Aug 23, 2021 at 15:26 | comment | added | ProfRob | @zucculent Models are made with different abundance ratios. Do a google on "alpha-enhanced models". However, there aren't models that feature say oxygen enhanced by a factor of two over all other elements - because such stars don't exist in nature. | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 14:46 | comment | added | zucculent | This is a great explanation of metallicity, but why don't astronomers discuss more specific elements when talking about stellar evolution. My understanding is that a more metallic star will lose mass at a higher rate, which can affect the final stage in the star's life cycle. But wouldn't different metals contribute differently to the a star's mass loss rate? And to be clear, I'm talking about initial metallicity here. | |
| Aug 23, 2021 at 8:21 | history | answered | ProfRob | CC BY-SA 4.0 |