When will the number of stars be a maximum?Are there ways to estimate size of the “whole universe”?How Does Cosmology Constrain the Number of Neutrino Species?Will we ever end up in the black hole?When will the Milky Way “arrive” at the Great Attractor, and what all happen then?Will the Universe end by time stopping?What happens to galaxies when they die?Number of photons in universe? I'll take number from a star in unit time and extrapolateHalf of the Milky Way's baryonic mass is from other galaxies - when did this happen?How to to compute the expected number of collisions between stars when Milkyway and Andromeda merged?Possible scenarios for life in the death of open universe possible?What is the lyman-werner background?
Why does Taylor’s series “work”?
FIFO data structure in pure C
Is my company merging branches wrong?
Lock out of Oracle based on Windows username
Will this series of events work to drown the Tarrasque?
Why aren't satellites disintegrated even though they orbit earth within earth's Roche Limits?
Why is the S-duct intake on the Tu-154 uniquely oblong?
Why use a retrograde orbit?
Is it standard to have the first week's pay indefinitely withheld?
Can a generation ship withstand its own oxygen and daily wear for many thousands of years?
I recently started my machine learning PhD and I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing
Can the Gate spell draw a creature larger that 20 feet in every dimension through the portal it creates?
Was murdering a slave illegal in American slavery, and if so, what punishments were given for it?
Does a windmilling propeller create more drag than a stopped propeller in an engine out scenario
How do I balance a campaign consisting of four kobold PCs?
Why are there five extra turns in tournament Magic?
How to draw pentagram-like shape in Latex?
What technology would Dwarves need to forge titanium?
Show that the characteristic polynomial is the same as the minimal polynomial
How would fantasy dwarves exist, realistically?
Save my secrets!
In Dutch history two people are referred to as "William III"; are there any more cases where this happens?
Have the writers and actors of GOT responded to its poor reception?
Why does the U.S military use mercenaries?
When will the number of stars be a maximum?
Are there ways to estimate size of the “whole universe”?How Does Cosmology Constrain the Number of Neutrino Species?Will we ever end up in the black hole?When will the Milky Way “arrive” at the Great Attractor, and what all happen then?Will the Universe end by time stopping?What happens to galaxies when they die?Number of photons in universe? I'll take number from a star in unit time and extrapolateHalf of the Milky Way's baryonic mass is from other galaxies - when did this happen?How to to compute the expected number of collisions between stars when Milkyway and Andromeda merged?Possible scenarios for life in the death of open universe possible?What is the lyman-werner background?
$begingroup$
There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.
I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.
I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.
cosmology stellar-evolution galactic-dynamics fate-of-universe modeling
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.
I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.
I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.
cosmology stellar-evolution galactic-dynamics fate-of-universe modeling
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00
2
$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07
1
$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48
$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07
1
$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.
I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.
I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.
cosmology stellar-evolution galactic-dynamics fate-of-universe modeling
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
$endgroup$
There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.
I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.
I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.
cosmology stellar-evolution galactic-dynamics fate-of-universe modeling
cosmology stellar-evolution galactic-dynamics fate-of-universe modeling
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
edited May 7 at 0:43
uhoh
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
asked May 6 at 3:01
uhohuhoh
8,73022279
8,73022279
2
$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00
2
$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07
1
$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48
$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07
1
$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00
2
$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07
1
$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48
$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07
1
$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34
2
2
$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00
$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00
2
2
$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07
$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07
1
1
$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48
$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48
$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07
$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07
1
1
$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34
$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.
If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).
The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.
We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.
Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.
I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.
The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.
If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).
On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.
Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.
Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14
1
$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26
$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53
$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27
$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31782%2fwhen-will-the-number-of-stars-be-a-maximum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.
If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).
The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.
We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.
Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.
I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.
The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.
If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).
On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.
Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.
Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14
1
$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26
$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53
$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27
$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.
If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).
The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.
We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.
Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.
I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.
The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.
If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).
On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.
Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.
Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14
1
$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26
$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53
$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27
$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.
If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).
The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.
We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.
Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.
I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.
The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.
If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).
On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.
Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.
Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
$endgroup$
TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.
If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).
The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.
We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.
Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.
I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.
The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.
If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).
On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.
Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.
Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
edited May 6 at 17:56
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
answered May 6 at 8:11
Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries
56.2k4116182
56.2k4116182
$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14
1
$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26
$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53
$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27
$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14
1
$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26
$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53
$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27
$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51
$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14
$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14
1
1
$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26
$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26
$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53
$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53
$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27
$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27
$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51
$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31782%2fwhen-will-the-number-of-stars-be-a-maximum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00
2
$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07
1
$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48
$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07
1
$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34