Question Are new stars being born...

[Terra Australis]

... or are our telescopes better at detecting far away objects and looking further back into time?

Didn't every thing come in to existence at the beginning?

 

[Pogo]

Pretty much all the mass was created at the BB, but mostly in the form of hydrogen and helium with a bit of lithium as gas and dust. Today, there is still much gas and dust out there, and stars are still being born.

 

[Terra Australis]

Where is the energy coming from to cause this to happen? As the universe increases in entropy, for new stars to form there must be some input of energy to decrease entropy. In an expanding universe matter tends to disperse. Order -> Disorder.
Just some thoughts

 

[rod]

Terra Australis, the question was asked *Are new stars being born...* Cosmology and astronomy today is committed to the BB model so the answer must be *yes* New stars form all the time because of gas clouds and gravitational potential energy in the gas clouds (M42 in Orion is an example). According to the BB model, cosmic high noon star formation took place where we see objects today with redshifts some 3.0 to 4.0, the star formation rates extremely high and fast compared to other parts of the universe much closer to earth. However, in my studies I find new star formations reported in the Milky Way, 200 pc from the Sun, Magellanic Clouds - all over the map Here are some references.

3 Msun/annum in Milky Way, source Allen's Astrophysical Quantities Fourth Edition 2000, p. 572
200 pc from the Sun, October 2021, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506.5681D/abstract, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.01844.pdf
source 27-August-2021, https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-magellanic-cloud-has-been-mapped-in-detail/, the Magellanic Cloud star formation rate(s)

Ken Croswell reported in 1995 about 10 new stars per year form in the Milky Way, source Croswell, K. The Alchemy of the Heavens 1995, p. 3

Using a one million year time period, I get new stars formed in MW according to Ken Croswell, about 10 million. Within 200 pc of the Sun, about 150 solar masses of new stars, per annum 1.5E-4 solar mass/yr and 0.8E-4 solar mass/yr
Using Magellanic Cloud rates, 300,000 new stars formed (0.3 solar mass per annum).

Using my 90-mm refractor telescope and 10-inch Newtonian, I enjoy viewing M42 in Orion. I am still waiting to see some new stars pop out and become visible in M42

 

[Terra Australis]

Rod: thanks for those links

 

[Atlan0001]

You ask how much gain is there? How much loss is there, and how much has there been, to blackholes? Gain, especially concerning quantum fluctuation gain, creation, seemingly from nothing and nowhere, occurs. Loss to blackholes, and loss of blackholes (disappearing to seeming nothingness and nowhere), occurs. How much has been lost, all told? How much has been gained, all told? What is to the other side of the Planck Big Bang horizon? Or is the Planck Big Bang horizon itself also the Big Crunch (quantum gravity)? Endless end (endless ends wide) across the infinite.... and an endless beginning (endless beginnings wide) throughout an infinite.

The flattening smoothness of entropy will never extend beyond the Planck Big Bang horizon. The non-linear infinity of paralleling finite universes is at once a non-linear infinity of paralleling infinitesimals (thus a multi-dimensional entity). Thus entropy goes nowhere but to an existence already in place.... always in place.... always in existence. Ultimately, nothing is lost nor gained. "Universe" means nothing if not an ultimate balance of natures.... not once upon a time but at all times.

 

[Helio]

The BB model starts where physics can explain things. This is not at the very beginning (i.e. t = 0), but in fractions of a nanosecond thereafter where temperatures were extreme as all that existed was energy. Temperatures were something like 10^23 K - almost a trillion trillion kelvins. Next came quarks, then elementary particles (protons, electrons, etc.). The expansion brought temperature down to about 3000k when, all at once, electrons became attached to the protons and atoms were born. 9 hydrogen for each helium atom. I tiny amount of Li and one or two of the other, lighter elements were formed as well.

But this incredible mass of h and he wasn't perfectly homogenous or isotropic due to quantum effects. So the slight differences, along with incredibly fortuitous force strengths relative to one another, allowed large clouds to form. Over time, these clouds often fragmented into clumps that became the incubators for stars.

There are still large clouds around, but not as much as before as Rod has noted. Protostars and their disks were a complete mystery until IR and radar technology came along and started "seeing" these things.

The closests star forming region of consequence, besides the Magellanic clouds, is in Taurus, but perhaps the greatest area of study is in multiple regions of Orion.

It's incredible what high-level forms exist in the universe, like us, with the expense to entropy (increase).

 

[Atlan0001]

The greatest star and galaxy forming region of consequence is the region 13 to 14 billion light years from any local region. The collapsed -- constant -- horizon of the infinite, or Multiverse, Universe has material substantiality of its own. Every finite local, relative, universe of an infinity of paralleling universes is result as well as contributor to that material substantiality in collapsed horizon (Big Crunch / Planck Big Bang horizon). It's an unapproachable horizon as are all such horizons. It keeps its distance and evolutionary aspect. A fast traveler of the universe would travel into seeming fast evolutions:

(past (-) ----> future (+) ----> now (t=0)).

That seemingly immortal traveler would always see, from midst uncountable stars and galaxies and other regions and things evolved -- or in process of evolution -- he has passed, the collapsed horizon to be keeping its constancy at 13 to 14 billion light years away (and keeping its constancy inside him at the Planck Big Bang base of his own makeup). One result of the fact that every point of an infinite expanse and depth of points is always and forever the dead center point of infinity (thus always dead center point, too, of the collapsed horizon / material substantiality of infinity). He can't catch that horizon of endless beginning, nor unless he happens into the event horizon of some blackhole, will he ever approach [universal] end point.

 

[Terra Australis]

Amazing answers to a seemingly simple question, thank you everyone.
However is there not an entropy dilemma here?
Doesn't entropy either remain constant or increase?
The formation of new stars from potential energy of gravitational collapse is that an increase or decrease in entropy?
I welcome all responses.

 

[rod]

Some issues to ponder concerning new stars appearing in the galaxy or other galaxies today. Where are all the ZAMS (zero age main sequence) plots for new stars on the H-R diagram that are confirmed as ZAMS today? This is true for globular clusters and H-R diagram dating. All Milky Way GCs must originally be ZAMS plots to compute their ages on the main sequence at the start for today's calculated 11 to 13 billion year ages. We have many open star clusters too so where are the ZAMS in those open clusters? In our Milky Way, a July 2021 reports show 46 solar masses of new stars form each year in the gas clouds in the MW. Source, Which Molecular Cloud Structures Are Bound? https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021arXiv210705750E/abstract July 2021. The arXiv report indicates a SFR as high as 300 Msun yr^-1 according to some calculations and gas clouds short lived 10^7 to 10^8 years reported, arxiv paper, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.05750.pdf, 12-July-2021.

Another factor, spiral arms are known to be short lived, perhaps 80 to 180 million years at best. When it comes to new stars forming, the first stars did not collapse from molecular gas clouds like we see today in Orion, e.g. M42. Population III stars must form from the original, primordial gas created during BBN in the BB model (no dust, no CO gas, etc.). Can we see the original, pristine gas clouds in the universe today? Do we see Population III stars today? How do we know all the MW GCs documented (about 150 or so) started at out as ZAMS plots on the H-R diagram to calculate their ages today? I chew on issues like this

 

[Helio]

Amazing answers to a seemingly simple question, thank you everyone.
However is there not an entropy dilemma here?
Doesn't entropy either remain constant or increase?
The formation of new stars from potential energy of gravitational collapse is that an increase or decrease in entropy?
I welcome all responses.

Good question as entropy is important.

The beginning instant is held to have been at an incredibly low entropy level, all-time low, in fact.

Entropy began increasing from that moment. Some of the early processes that brought forth atoms, etc., may have been considered reversible, but the net effect gives our universe an on-going process that causes entropy to continually increase.

So much so that if the universe were not expanding at this point, then the net heat from all the entropy increase would be the death of the universe, hence you will see "heat death" stated, less now than in the past.

Since the universe seems to not only be expanding but accelerating, then there won't be enough heat per unit volume to allow a heat death, but a cold death is far more likely, but that's trillions of years from now. [IOW, the expansion causes space temperatures to continually drop.]

 

[techman1]

There is a field of view of the Hubble (telescope). Since the universe is expanding at a speed higher than the speed of light (does not contradict SRT), then in theory we should not see new stars, i.e. photons and other particles must move away and will not come out to fix them. But at the same time, Hubble's field of view also expands, which makes it possible to catch a particle or a whole stream. This particle can serve as an identification mark for a star or even a galaxy. Not entirely new, but for us, it was recorded for the first time. Somewhere there was nothing, and then something flies in from there. That is, the field of view of our most powerful telescopes and sensors is far from the entire universe. And over time, more and more discoveries take place. And will be.

 

[Helio]

There is a field of view of the Hubble (telescope). Since the universe is expanding at a speed higher than the speed of light (does not contradict SRT), then in theory we should not see new stars, i.e. photons and other particles must move away and will not come out to fix them. But at the same time, Hubble's field of view also expands, which makes it possible to catch a particle or a whole stream. This particle can serve as an identification mark for a star or even a galaxy. Not entirely new, but for us, it was recorded for the first time. Somewhere there was nothing, and then something flies in from there. That is, the field of view of our most powerful telescopes and sensors is far from the entire universe. And over time, more and more discoveries take place. And will be.

I'm unclear how the FoV (Field of View) will help us see regions near or exceeding the speed of light. Do you mean the HST's light gathering and resolving power? The James Webb is our next big step for this.

It is true, surprisingly, that when big scopes look at galaxies that are very far away that they will appear larger than expected. This is because the light from these distant galaxies were emitted long ago when that galaxy and us were much closer to one another, hence its apparent size was larger then. But at greater distances, this isn't true since we are now too far away for that benefit. It's simple geometry, actually.

 

[Harry Costas]

If your mind set is on the BB, than your locked to that theory.
For now the predicted age is 13.7 billion years old.
If we can see deep field 14 billion years and observe a trillion galaxies what is your mind set telling you.
Northern Hemisphere in an area of a rice the Hubble telescope observed over 5000 galaxies 13.2 billion light years deep field.
This was repeated Southern Hemisphere same result.
Ditto other areas.
To generate a spiral galaxy with a a few billion stars without doing much maths you would need much much more over 20 billion years.
Our Sun went through a cycle event 7 billion years ago possibly forming our solar system.
To form our Local group of galaxies having over 200 galaxies with a giant galaxy M87 as gravity sink, time for this to form your looking at an estimate time line of a trillion years or more.
Which ever way you look at it, 13.7 billion years is not enough time.

 

[Harry Costas]

Are stars being formed.
Millions of stars through out the universe are formed daily.
Mostly from the centre core of galaxies expelling droplets of condensates, and a high portion through out the envelope of galaxies via compaction.

 

[Jzz]

Pretty much all the mass was created at the BB, but mostly in the form of hydrogen and helium with a bit of lithium as gas and dust. Today, there is still much gas and dust out there, and stars are still being born.

I was watching a very interesting program on BBC that hypotheses' that mature black holes inhibit the birth of stars because the event horizon is so hot that it prevents gases from coalescing into the necessary masses needed for star formation. Younger black holes on the other hand actually participate in star formation by sparking the star process through speeding up mass formation through the exertion of gravity. This is given as the reason for the slow star formation rate in the milky way, about one star a year!

 

[Helio]

I was watching a very interesting program on BBC that hypotheses' that mature black holes inhibit the birth of stars because the event horizon is so hot that it prevents gases from coalescing into the necessary masses needed for star formation.

That's interesting, but I would guess that most mature BHs have exhausted the accretion gas, thus wouldn't be so hot.

Younger black holes on the other hand actually participate in star formation by sparking the star process through speeding up mass formation through the exertion of gravity.

That makes sense because some sort of disturbance is required to trigger cloud collapse. Normally it is either supersonic flows internal to the cloud or nearby SN. Perhaps BH's that pass through town are enough to trigger collapse, though I would think they would have to be fairly massive.

This is given as the reason for the slow star formation rate in the milky way, about one star a year!

I don't understand their reasoning. I thought the MW is now more mature and without much fresh gas (GMCs) to have the formation rate it once had. Do BH's change this, somehow?

 

[Harry Costas]

The Milky Way is going through a mature phase, given that thousands of stars are created,
The centre of our Milky Way has a swam of Black Holes, not classical black holes with a singularity, but! Condensates that mimic the properties of a Classic Black hole without a singularity.
Condensates are highly packed matter cores that have dipolar vector fields ejecting droplets of matter that seed stars.
This is not an overnight thought or theory, but based on science and observations.

 

[Catastrophe]

OP asked "Are new stars being born?"

but also "Didn't every thing come in to existence at the beginning?"

Well, to the second part, no. It is arguable that the "seeds" of everything came into existence at the very beginning, but, as you will probably have seen, there is a lot about the beginning (t = 0) elsewhere, e.g.,
Ask Me Anything - Ask Dr. Joe - Now WEEKLY! | Page 4 | Space.com Forums

But there is a further consideration. Even if there were no more stars being born in the part of the Universe we can see, our observable universe, we can never know whether or not stars were still being born in the part we can never see.
It all gets quite complicated when you ask questions like that. The ultimate answer to your questions is that there are some things science cannot observe and experiment with, and thus cannot answer.

So the simple answers to your questions are:

"Are new stars being born?"
Yes, and probably will continue to be for a long time (some billion years)

and

"Didn't every thing come in to existence at the beginning?"
The raw material, yes, but not ready made stars.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

If you assume a start of the universe.
The question is, where did matter come from?
How did it transform?
Nucleosynthesis from the theory of the Big Bang can be explained as a part process in isolated cyclic events.

 

[Jzz]

If you assume a start of the universe.
The question is, where did matter come from?
How did it transform?
Nucleosynthesis from the theory of the Big Bang can be explained as a part process in isolated cyclic events.

I suppose what everyone is banking on is energy. The tremendous energy that accompanied the Big Bang made everything else possible. If the next question is "Where did the energy come from, at least one can reply, "From the Big Bang!"

 

[Jzz]

I don't understand their reasoning. I thought the MW is now more mature and without much fresh gas (GMCs) to have the formation rate it once had. Do BH's change this, somehow?

As I understand it; there is a super massive black hole at the centre of the milky way with a mass that is about 4 million times that of the sun, the resultant gravitation pulls stars and other galactic matter into its accretion disc, superheating it and inhibiting the formation of stars. I suppose this must still be a theory, although the program did claim that there was recorded proof of this process taking place.

The milky way is massive enough to contain enough clouds of gas to form stars. Anyway these theories must needs be speculative, although if the rate of star formation is less than what should theoretically be possible obviously there has to be a reason.

 

[Helio]

As I understand it; there is a super massive black hole at the centre of the milky way with a mass that is about 4 million times that of the sun, the resultant gravitation pulls stars and other galactic matter into its accretion disc, superheating it and inhibiting the formation of stars. I suppose this must still be a theory, although the program did claim that there was recorded proof of this process taking place.

The MW, however, doesn't seem to have an active accretion disk around the central BH. We now have time lapse images (video) of stars quickly orbiting the BH, so I assume we would have detected any active disk. Even if stars formed like this, wouldn't they just form a multiple star system, never leaving their host. I would think these protostars and stars would tend to have orbital decay due to disk interaction, thus have short lives.

Just my thoughts, however.

 

[Harry Costas]

Energy is directly related to matter.
Transformation from one form to the other is to explain Nucleosynthesis.
You cannot create energy or matter from nothing.
We are dealing with infinity.
What does this mean?
No age to the universe,
What does this mean?
We need to understand the transformation of matter via quantum dynamics.
We have the knowledge and tools to explain the transformations and observations.

 

[Harry Costas]

The swarms of Black Holes(without singularity) are located towards the centre and some are located through out the MW.
The largest BH is estimated to be about 8 million solar masses. It is active but not explosive.
Compared to M87 BH being about 10 billion solar mass.
Centre of super cluster of galaxies over 100 billion solar.
Let’s go over billion years in the past.
The BH in the centre of the MW was active to the extent of expelling arms that formed our spiral arms. We can observe such events in many observations.