Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | October 1st 2008 11:00 AM | 1 comment | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
The “birth rate” for stars is certainly not easy to determine. Distances in the universe are far too great for astronomers to be able to count all the newly formed celestial bodies with the aid of a telescope so it is fortunate that emerging stars give themselves away by a characteristic signal known as “H-alpha” emissions.

The larger the number of stars being formed in a particular region of the firmament, the more H-alpha rays are emitted from that region.

More newborn stars are apparently emerging around the universe than previously assumed, say researchers at Bonn University who published a paper in “Nature” explaining that a systematic error in the method of estimation has resulted in a lower number.

“H-alpha emissions only occur in the vicinity of very heavy stars,” explains Jan Pflamm-Altenburg of the Argelander Institute of Astronomy at Bonn University. It has long been accepted that heavy and light stars are always born in a certain ratio to each other. One “H-alpha baby” is thought to be accompanied by 230 lighter stars with a mass too low for them to emit H-alpha rays.

However, new observations make this theory untenable. On the edges of “disc galaxies” (like the Milky Way) the H-alpha radiation ceases abruptly. For a long time astronomers concluded from this finding that no stars are being born in this region. “The explanation offered is simply that too little gaseous matter exists for it to collapse into balls and form stars,” says Jan Pflamm-Altenburg. “These theories largely inform our understanding of how galaxies developed from the Big Bang to the present.”

A satellite mission has recently revealed that stars are in fact being formed beyond the H-alpha perimeter. These stars are, without exception, so light that no H-alpha radiation is emitted. Consequently, the numerical ratio of 230 light stars to one heavy star does not apply to the edges of galaxies. “This observation presented the astronomy community with quite a conundrum,” says Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of the Argelander Institute.

Kroupa and Pflamm-Altenburg have come up with a solution which, they say, is basically very simple. They note that star births are not evenly distributed across galaxies but are focused on the star clusters – well known examples being the Seven Sisters and the Orion Nebula. And only large, high-mass clusters produce heavy stars, i.e. the newborn stars that can create the H-alpha emission.

“But these heavy star clusters primarily occur in the core regions of disc galaxies,” says Jan Pflamm-Altenburg. “Towards the edges they become increasingly rare. The outer regions tend to contain smaller clusters in which the formation of lighter stars is more frequent.”

The conclusion is that a numerical ratio of 230 to 1 is only valid for the centres of galaxies. On the edges of galaxies each “H-alpha baby” might be accompanied by a thousand or more light stars. Those astronomers who always use the same factor when calculating total star formations from their H-alpha readings therefore underestimate the number of newborn stars.

The theoretical work of the two Bonn-based astrophysicists supports affirms that the mass of new stars depends linearly on the mass of the gas in their vicinity. Their conclusions open up completely new perspectives for research into the development of galaxies.

Comments

Thank you for a forum. I would like some assistance resolving in my mind what existed before the Bang. It is alo my understanding that Energy caused the universe and eventually life cells, and almost everything that happens. Einstein, an atheist, discovered the formula for Energy. It needs mass and light. Did Einstein, not in effect, discover Energy? (I mean the so called God of science, not the God of religions.) I had concluded that the beginning was caused by Energy. But then I think. How was the Energy created? I think Hawking says the the Bang is the beginning of time. I am lost. Can anyone influence my thinking? Wait a minute I think I just taught myself something while writing this blog. It is Matter (Mass) times the speed of light squared in vaccuum. The formula is matter traveling at the speed of light not necessarily light. A little confusing for me. The stars produce light. That would make God Matter at the speed of light. Where did matter come from? At the initiation of the Big Bang and there was nothing before this? That's what I can't understand. Otherwise, I understand the 15B, but how about 15B - x? Will the European experiment with a black hole create a new earth. I know the answer is no, just asking. jkelly104@cox.net

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.