New answers tagged

1

You are comparing distributions in a way that they are not easily comparable and the eye is misled: watch the scaling of your axes of the plots you compare! In order to compare, you want to make sure that you use similar, either log-log for both graphs or linear-linear or something else - but identical in both graphs. Mind also that the size distribution of ...


2

The presence of heavier elements makes the medium absorb more radiation. This means a nascent star that would have been able to collapse in the absence of metals, will lose its outer layers to radiation pressure as the core starts to heat up.


1

This Okhubo 2009 paper presents two fiducial models: (a) stars between Pop III-1 stars of 40 to 300 M☉ stars not affected by stellar feedback which end in core-instability SN and BHs [they speculate that some became seeds of SMBHs]; and (b) Pop III-2 stars of 40 to 60 M☉ which do include radiative feedback and explode as Type II SNs, seeding the universe ...


2

First off, let us try to clarify a few terms: As usual in astrophysics, metal-free star means atomic number $Z \leq 3$, i.e. it only consists of the primordial elements hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Primordial star literally means original star and refers to the first star(s) (generation) formed after the big bang. It is IMHO equivalent to metal-free, and ...


1

Not being an expert in star formation, I found a well-written paper summary from which I conclude that typical star formation rates range between $6 \ldots 24 M_\odot / yr$. The blog quotes the following graph by M. Boquien, V. Buat, and V. Perret, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5792 In this paper we investigate in isolation the impact of a variable star ...


Top 50 recent answers are included