Frenetic star formation near the core of the galaxy M83 was captured last year by the Hubble Space Telescope's new Wide Field Camera 3. Standard theories fail to account for the emergence of the massive bluish stars or the way they return energy to the gaseous clouds out of which they form.
Image: Courtesy of NASA, ESA and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
In Brief
- Although astronomers’ theory of star formation has advanced substantially in recent years, it still has serious holes. Stars form out of gaseous clouds that collapse, yet where do those clouds come from and what makes them collapse?
- In addition, standard theory treats stars in isolation, neglecting their interactions and blowback on their natal clouds.
- Astronomers are making progress on filling in these gaps. For instance, they have seen how massive stars can trigger the collapse of clouds and how newborn stars fling one another into deep space.
If there is anything you think astronomers would have figured out by now, it is how stars form. The basic idea for how stars form goes back to Immanuel Kant and Pierre-Simon Laplace in the 18th century, and the details of how they shine and evolve were worked out by physicists in the first half of the 20th century. Today the principles that govern stars are taught in middle school, and exotica such as dark matter dominate the headlines. It might seem that star formation is a problem that has been solved. But nothing could be further from the truth. The birth of stars remains one of the most vibrant topics in astrophysics today.
In the simplest terms, the process represents the victory of gravity over pressure. It starts with a vast cloud of gas and dust floating in interstellar space. If the cloud—or, more often, a dense part of such a cloud called a core—is cool and dense enough, the inward pull of its gravity overpowers the outward push of gaseous pressure, and it begins to collapse under its own weight. The cloud or core becomes ever denser and hotter, eventually sparking nuclear fusion. The heat generated by fusion increases the internal pressure and halts the collapse. The newborn star settles into a dynamic equilibrium that can last millions to trillions of years.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentUnfortunately no theory explains a physical process that produces the effect of gravitation. Our most successful theories of gravitation merely predict its actions for discrete objects of mass, relying on a fabricated force and imaginary dimensional constructs to explain its affects. Neither can explain nor even predict the formation of stars from within massive gaseous molecular clouds. Neither can explain the motions of newly created stars within these cohesive clouds, which deviate considerably from their motions in comparatively empty space. Science should not yet be so comfortable, confident in all that is now known…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jtdwyer, "Science should not yet be so comfortable, confident in all that is now known…", isn't that the point of the article? Or did you not read it before posting?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy we care how we come?How to go is better? NI_R_VA_NA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The newborn star settles into a dynamic equilibrium that can last millions to trillions of years." Statements like this, that demonstrate enormous extremes in estimates, make me a little unsettled when I read that our star should start swelling into a red giant that vaporizes the solar system in ~5 billion years. Makes you wonder if one day the models will become far more refined and we'll get a statement like, "Our sun should start swelling into a red giant any day now."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGravity & Antigravity,it's borderless, it'S permeated forever. MEDITATION is the answer. Let try and find out.NIRVANA.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBen Davies discovered massive protostar W33A is forming just like a normal small star. The debate is over that stars of different masses have different kinds of formations or shouldn't have solar systems because of extra radiation blowing away water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas far as the creation of massive stars(blue giants)...i would think that it could be explained if many(lots and lots) of jupiter/saturn size brown dwarfs( even solar mass suns) combine together to create them. look a all the binary systems discovered...maybe there once was twenty or 100 of them that combined...just a thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still wondered after so long that based on retativity, since the ultimate speed is that of the light so the expansion rate can not be greater than light so it matters not if our location is in the centre or at the edge of the univers being 13 to 14 billion light years then all should be observable, knowing that the rate of expansion or light can't be an add on cocept then what is unobservable univers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPearemard...I agree...talking about something beyond the cosmic back ground radiation is meaningless..this was the beginning of energy and mater as we know it. (ps. there is not an edge to the universe...all/any matter and energy are the centre...ie. every atom in you is the center...etc..)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course "everyone states the inability to make sense" of today's conclusions that stars are formed by the collapse and accretion of clouds of gas and dust. Why? It doesn't happen that way. My theory of 2008: SUNS create/shed/birth SUNS. They attain a maximum unsustainable size and shed a portion of themselves. That is why composition of all Suns are identical. It's as simple as that. Time to abandon Big Bang Theory that can never be justified mathematically or logically. Any discussion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course "everyone states the inability to make sense" of today's conclusions that stars are formed by the collapse and accretion of clouds of gas and dust. Why? It doesn't happen that way. My theory of 2008: SUNS create/shed/birth SUNS. They attain a maximum unsustainable size and shed a portion of themselves. That is why composition of all Suns are identical. It's as simple as that. Time to abandon Big Bang Theory that can never be justified mathematically or logically. Time for new thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course "everyone states the inability to make sense" of today's conclusions that stars are formed by the collapse and accretion of clouds of gas and dust. Why? It doesn't happen that way. My theory of 2008: SUNS create/shed/birth SUNS. They attain a maximum unsustainable size and shed a portion of themselves. Briefly, that is why composition of all Suns are identical. It's as simple as that. Time to abandon Big Bang Theory that can never be justified. Any discussion?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissorry for multiple comments, new computer user as of May, still learning, obviously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a thoery that a star is born and dies concurrently. After a star supernovas not only does it push out but it will push in creating a dense mass is a small space. This will create a blackhole pulling matter from around it in for fuel. The pressure will cause the nuclear reaction to start. As the nuclear reaction continues this will cause the small mass to grow into a new star. I have no idea if anyone has looked at this idea just a thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this