Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
To-do list for Star formation:
|
Star formation and Star Formation currently point to different articles. They should be merged or disambiguated in some way. -- BenRG 09:40, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok. Now both point here. --AstroNomer 23:32, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
Why do planets form if gravitational collapse is insufficient to form stars? I gather from this article that it is all or nothing. Jupiter is supposed to be a failed star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.165 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi all.
Could anyone add information about known current star formations? Also is there any current theory on the expected frequency of observable star formations?
-Sjalq
um....... just about every single nebula ever observed Ezkerraldean
Wouldn't some coverage of the following information be appropriate for this page?
and the formation of binary star systems? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is very vague about how quickly or slowly this whole process takes place. -- Paul Prescod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.192.12 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This partially relates to RJH's comment above. Wikipedia has a range of articles on different aspects of the star formation process with many of them containing excellent material. However, I found from browsing that a lot of that material doesn't seem to be in the right place and that much of it describes the broader picture of star formation rather than the specific sub-object or process mentioned in the article title. It is my opinion that star formation articles need more of a general framework. To that end I've created a nav box for this astronomy subsection to try and give some sense to these articles as whole. I don't claim its perfect, but some sort of unify construct would help focus the topic. --Jason Kirk 15:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed 2 dot points from the pathfinder objects as they are clearly not pathfinder objects. One point was a statement which did not have a appropriate reference and the other was an unreferenced irrelevant quote. Coffeeassured (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Pathfinder objects: what are they? The article doesn't mention the word except in this heading. Could anyone provide some explanatory text? Lancevortex (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following addition to the lead because it is poorly explained, overly broad and completely unsubstantiated. As justification I cite WP:NOCITE under "doubtful and harmful" to the whole article, as it appears to put into doubt all of the content and yet remains utterly unjustified.
Please clarify what this is intended to communicate and provide suitable reliable sources. What is an "evolutionary astronomer"? What are the theories popular with evolutionary astronomers? How do these theories fail to account for the Ideal Gas Law? In what sense is this relevant to star formation? How is it a major obstacle? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In answer to the second question it is actually all the theories on wiki now as the theories on wiki requires 13.7 Ga or so age for the universe. For the third question, since no one has answered this for so long I would think it would mean the equation pV=nRT whereby V is volume, p is a pressure, n is the mole, R is Regnault constant and T is temperature in Kelvin. It can be found on wiki . As shown by the equation, if the temperature increases, both the volume and pressure increase while the number of atoms should be constant. As the theory of star formation such as cloud collapse requires the temperature and pressure to increase while requiring the volume to decrease, alot of energy (to cause the increase in pressure)is required to make all the gas accumulate in one place and compressing it instead of dispersing evenly throughout the universe through diffusion. So actually a star does fit with the ideal gas laws however the formation of a star without input of energy doesn't fit with the ideal gas law. The only way i believe we know that could input energy is by novas and supernovas, blackholes ejecting strong winds and galaxies colliding. However although the input of energy is very big, unless there is something to hold the cloud together while pressure is being applied so that it can be compressed until critical density is achieved, the cloud would just be blown away and scattered even more. So now to make these theories more complete we would certainly need to find a container which can contain the gas while pressure is applied until the cloud becomes a star as this certainly poses a major obstacle. I hope this also answers question 4 and 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.144.28 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No one has ever observed the formation of even one of these stars. Yet there enough stars that each person on earth can personally own 11 trillion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.124.33 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Does it say in the article that the process takes millions of years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.192.12 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
In the discovery channel, I have seen how important is supermassive black hole for the formation of stars of the galaxy. After taking out the summary of a part, I fount it like this :
It said that the gas of the early universe collapsed to form a giant black hole which immediately started feeding off gas and creating a quasar. The energy released by the quasar would create intense change in temperature causing it to condense into stars.
Could not we use it on the article. --Extra999 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. -- Extra999 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have put a small paragraph at the end of the article's text giving a link to the new discovery in 2009 of Pea galaxies. This is relevant and gives a link to the wiki article Pea galaxy. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Protostar cloud clump "cores" contract "up and to the left" along a Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction phase track, until they reach the Hayashi Limit at the "peak" of that track across the HRD. Then, protostars, having "made it over the Hayashi forbidden zone hump", then "drop straight down" at (nearly) constant surface temperature near 3000K, along the Hayashi track. Massive-enough stars (>0.5Msun) then "veer leftwards" onto Henyey tracks. Overall, densities and temperatures only increase, the entire time.66.235.38.214 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if asking questions in the Talk page is allowed, but here I go: The "Protostar" section states that "This occurs when the density is about 10−13 g cm−3" I'm confused about the "cm−3". Does this mean an negative cubed? Does that make any sense? Also, shouldn't there be a "/"? Like so: "This occurs when the density is about 10−13 g / cm−3" 62.12.14.25 (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that it would be a good idea to remove this section, because this topic is not particularly important to star formation. Instead, some of the results from Herschel about filamentary molecular clouds, e.g. André et al. (2010), are more important. I can try to track down the empty-space paper, and insert it as a reference elsewhere in the article. OtterAM (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The term "Stellar ignition" redirects to this page, even though the article doesn't seem to use any variant of the word "ignite." It might be a good idea to have a small section explaining what it means for a star to "ignite." This is actually an ambiguous term. For astronomers it's the point at which a protostar becomes a star, defined as the moment it becomes visible because it has blown away enough of the surrounding dust. In astrophysics it sometimes means the point at which the protostar has become hot enough and bright enough to slow down the rate of infalling matter so that its net mass stops increasing, thus marking the transition from protostar to pre-main-sequence star. After that it slowly begins blowing away dust and gas, although it can be a hundreds of thousands of years before this is visible from afar. And finally, ignite can mean the point at which a pre-main-sequence star begins to experience full-scale nuclear fusion and enters the main sequence. For our sun, that happened tens of millions of years after the first two events.
There is a popular misconception that all three definitions are synonymous. This article might be a good place to clear up that misconception. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I think recent news on this topic should be highlighted
ALMA Discovers Infant Stars Surprisingly Near Galaxy’s Supermassive Black Hole
109.206.156.72 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the knowledge to create this section, and online searches don't readily return information such as, who was the first scientist to propose a method of star formation. What significant efforts, if any, were there prior to 1981? And of course, Richard Larson's contribution through his '81 paper in MNRAS would feature significantly in such a section, but I assume there was work before him. And it would be great to have a thumbnail sketch of significant updates to his theory. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.