![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/02/2011 6:28 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
In , writes: What prevailing view is that ? Look up "the G subdwarf problem." If stars much less than a solar mass formed early, they would still be present today. Moreover, if the early IMF were anything like today's, there would be lots of those stars in the solar neighborhood. We don't see them. This says the early IMF was nothing like today's; there were few if any low-mass stars. Of course "few" is not the same as "zero," but existing surveys put pretty strong limits on how many such stars there could be compared to the massive ones (presumed to be) responsible for reionization. It's possible that not all supermassive stars produced sub-dwarf companions, or if they did, some may have swallowed them again after formation. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trigger-happy Star Formation: Radiation From Massive Stars | cyber science | Science | 2 | August 21st 09 04:33 AM |
Small 'helper' stars needed for massive star formation (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 6th 08 03:56 AM |
The formation of stars by gravitational collapse rather than competitive accretion : Nature | Nick | UK Astronomy | 0 | November 18th 05 07:29 AM |
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe | Br Dan Izzo | Policy | 6 | September 7th 04 09:29 PM |
Books on Chemical Formation in Stars? | Wayne Watson | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 16th 03 02:13 PM |