Monster Star discovered !

[N_Molson]

Looks like it's the most massive discovered so far (265x Sun's mass) !

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/21/monster-bright-star-r136a1-astronomers

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

European Southern Observatory (ESO): "Stars Just Got Bigger: 300 Solar Mass Star Uncovered".

Astronomy Now: "Giant star breaks all records".

BBC News: "Astronomers detect 'monster star'".

 

[Moach]

man, that is one large, hot ball of gas:lol:

 

[orb]

Looks like it's the most massive discovered so far (265x Sun radius) !

The articles don't say anything about its radius, but only about mass, which varies depending on source from 265 to over 320 solar masses.

There are a number of low-density giants that are known to have an even bigger radius than R136a1

 

[george7378]

I also read about this - it's a fantastic new find! I think the star is around 30X the radius of the Sun, with a record-breaking ~265X the mass of it, which is a giant leap from the previous record (~175X). It's also amazing that this discovery was made in the LMC - outside our galaxy! It's also amazingly luminous, at ~10,000,000 times the Sun's luminosity. It's in a fantastically dense cluster too - somewhere between an open and a globular cluster, with approx. 450,000 solar masses contained in it.

 

[tblaxland]

The articles don't say anything about its radius, but only about mass, which varies depending on source from 265 to over 320 solar masses.

I read 320 at birth (about a million years ago), and 265 currently: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31285

 

[SiberianTiger]

Why do Magellanic Clouds hold so many huge stars? Is it a kind of pattern?

 

[jedidia]

A star this massive, at this distance... it's kind of strange to know that it went nova a long time ago and there's probably a black hole in that spot now.

Still, 300 freaking solar masses... I guess the astronomers are being very busy revising their theories currently.

 

[Urwumpe]

A star this massive, at this distance... it's kind of strange to know that it went nova a long time ago and there's probably a black hole in that spot now.

No, likely not - it is not that far away. Also it would possibly leave no remnant behind, but directly explode into nothing.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernova"]Hypernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[the.punk]

Wow. That's big. How long would such a massive star last?

 

[Urwumpe]

Wow. That's big. How long would such a massive star last?

At that luminosity? about 350,000 years.

 

[tblaxland]

At that luminosity? about 350,000 years.

The article says it is already one million years.

 

[SiberianTiger]

The article says it is already one million years.

AFAIK, it also violates what scientists thought was the mass limit for a star. So it's just another surprise it has brought. This means that astrophysicists have to trash some parts of the theory and begin thinking over.

 

[donatelo200]

Damn thats one hell off a star! I don't wan't to be anywhere nere that when it dies. Also didn't we think there we star 1,000x the mass of the sun when the univeres was just like a million years old.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes... also I compared a main sequence star like the sun to a blue hyper giant like this one. But since it is assumed that stars with more than 250 solar masses are metal poor (only hydrogen and helium), so no CNO cycle starts inside them, this should be not too far away.

 

[donatelo200]

No, likely not - it is not that far away. Also it would possibly leave no remnant behind, but directly explode into nothing.

Hypernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hypernovas are a good sign that the star has crashesd into a black hole. If when this star dies and dosn't form a black hole there won't be any hypernova because the black hole creats the two beams of gamma rays as it tears at the dying star. Now i don't 100% know what will happen to this star because of it's high mass. It could like you said go supernova and leave nothing behind. It could go hypernova and leave a black hole that is like 40x the sun's mass or it could explode in a new way and creat somthing that we havent discoverd.

 

[Urwumpe]

hypernovas are a good sign that the star has crashesd into a black hole. If when this star dies and doesn't form a black hole there won't be any hypernova because the black hole creates the two beams of gamma rays as it tears at the dying star.

That is wrong. Black holes actually produce only Hawking radiation, all other kinds of radiation are caused by matter around the black hole.

Also, please ready about "pair-instability".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair-instability_supernova

 

[donatelo200]

Huh did not know that. Yes black hole produce hawking radiation i knew that. They will produce beams of focust particals and energy when taking in matter from a star or planet or somthing that just got too close. Look Here. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar"]Quasars[/ame] are that just amplified a billion times or so.

 

[Urwumpe]

Huh did not know that. Yes black hole produce hawking radiation i knew that. They will produce beams of focust particals and energy when taking in matter from a star or planet or sumthing that just got too close. Look Here. Quasars are that just amplified a billion times or so.

Yes, but that is not produced by the black hole alone, but by the matter getting accelerated and heated on the way. Neutron stars are also capable of it, to a less extend.

But Gamma Ray bursts during a supernova are not in the domain of black holes alone.

 

[donatelo200]

I know matter needs to fall into a blackhole to form the jets. Neutron stars create jets besids the two beams that already come out of certant ones.:blink: I agree though i was wrong about that black holes in having to be present in a Hypernovae.