Biggest Losers

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Black holes may be harder to make than once thought. When stars go supernova, theoretical calculations suggested that those about 25 times the sun's mass or more turn into black holes; meanwhile less massive stars become dense, whirling balls of neutrons. One such neutron star, in the Westerlund 1 star cluster and examined by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, defies this calculation. Based on the size of the largest nearby stars, astronomers deduced that the neutron star's parent was among the biggest of them all—at least 40 solar masses. They suggest that extremely weighty stars might shed mass so effectively before they die that enough is left only for a neutron star. The findings, appearing in an upcoming Astrophysical Journal Letters, may severely limit the formation of black holes to stars between 25 and 40 solar masses.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 294 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Biggest Losers” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 294 No. 1 (), p. 33
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0106-33b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe