[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 8 KB, 250x255, 250px-M57_The_Ring_Nebula.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4345989 No.4345989 [Reply] [Original]

Guys,

How did the scientist know the life cycle of star? How did they do the experiment?

>> No.4345994

>>4345989
>science
>requiring controlled experiments in a lab
Nope. Let the door hit you on the way out.

>> No.4345996

>>4345994
Ha

>> No.4345998

>>4345989

Theoretical physics.

Experimental physics has been exhausted for the most part.

>> No.4346007

>>4345998
Please leave /sci/

>> No.4346014

>>4345998
They are the same thing. Unless you're doing the common fallacy of "theory = guess".

As the other poster said more politely, "get out".

>> No.4346021

>>4346014
So it was by guessing?

>> No.4346026

>>4346014
Guy who told him to leave here.
They are not the same thing. What the fuck.
Maybe you should leave and the other guy should stay.

>> No.4346030

>>4346026
In context, he implied that modern science knows the life cycle of a star from "theoretical physics", and he implied that "theoretical physics" is something apart from evidence based science. In that specific point, he is wrong. That is all I meant to say.

>> No.4346033

>>4346030
Where do I learn how to talk like you? Sound sexy though ^^

>> No.4346040

>>4346030
Oh, I see.
Carry on, then.

>> No.4346041

b2fh paper

>> No.4346047
File: 36 KB, 280x289, 1272464909648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4346047

>> No.4346049

>>4346047
i know :(

OP

>> No.4346051

The process of nuclear fusion is extremely predictable when taken into consideration of how much force it must excrete to prevent the star from collapsing in on itself. Then we can predict how long it takes for the process to produce iron, which causes the star to die because it can't fuse further.

>> No.4346053

There is definitely an answer. I would look into this further but I am going to bed.

In my astronomy class we learned about this diagram:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/H-R_diagram_-edited-3.gif

As you can see there is a relationship between the color of a star and the luminosity of that star.

Not only that but the stars in the upper left of that diagram head towards the lower right over time.

So... various patches of the sky have various ages. As in a cluster of stars will emit light and it will take a certain amount of time to get here. We find that there is a correlation between where the stars are in that sequence, and their age. Meaning, an old patch of sky will have more in the lower right, and less in the upper left, and a very young patch will have more in the upper left and less in the lower right.

I am not sure if this definitely shows the cycle of a star, but its a starting place for those of you who would like to investigate.

>> No.4346060

>>4346047
>>4346049
If you're not purposefully trolling, you're a good job of accidentally trolling.

Step 1- science does not require experiments in a lab. Science is merely putting forward models that offer falsifiable predictions.

How do we know the life cycle of stars? I presume through application of physics, modeling the star's interior, along with advances in cosmology, e.g. big bang theory.

>> No.4346066

>>4346060
OP here. Sorry if I made yourself hurt by saying that science is merely experiments laboratories. I did not mean to say that for I am not a scientist myself. I was just asking and I'm not trolling here. Anyway thanks for the science brotip there :)

>>4346051
>>4346053
Thanks for the info

>> No.4346068

>>4346060
>e.g. big bang
>basing something from a theory (a geuss)

>> No.4346070

is our sun making iron yet?

>> No.4346071

>>4346066
Sorry - that's the common misconception / bullshit that creationists and other science denier like to quote.

>> No.4346074

>>4346070
lol
the moment a star produces iron, it will explode in about any moment

>> No.4346076

>>4346070
Only in big sized star.

>> No.4346080

>>4346068
And here comes the trolls.

>> No.4346081

>>4345989
They looked at a lot of shit.

>> No.4346083

>>4346076
Our sun is a medium sized. Example is beteguese star which is in red supergiant phase now.

>> No.4346085

The main way is quite simple.
Say you're in a city and you have a day to research the life cycle of humans. You could take a picture (or other measurement) of every person, and then draw all the data together, for example most of the people are adults with some elderly and some children so its a reasonable assumptions to say people spend most of their lives as adults.
[/analogy]

So if we observe lots and lots of stars we can see some were born recently and others are in their final stages but most (~95%) lie on the main sequence (main hydrogen burning). By observing lots of stars, forming stars and stellar remnants we can build up a picture of how stars live. There are some things that are remain purely theory unfortunately, for example red drawfs burn hydrogen very slowly and they are entirely convective so they can burn their entire supply of hydrogen. Because of this we expect them to have lifetimes of around a trillion years as opposed to a Sun like star (10 billion years) or a star like Betelgeuse (10 million years), so there are no red dwarf which have finished hydrogen burning so their end state is unobservable but predictable.

Another good way of looking at the stars it to use the Sun, we can study things like total output or its spectrum and how that relates to other things we can't directly observe on other stars like sunspots. then we can measure other stars in the same way to see if they share properties or not.

If you have any more questions or need clarification let me know.

>> No.4346088

>>4346085
Good explanation. I still dislike your apparent emphasis that "theory" isn't based on evidence. Perhaps "not yet confirmed" or "not yet directly observed (but still supported by evidence)" would be better. There's nothing special about red dwarfs that merit such ambiguity.

>> No.4346089

>>4346085
To OP, learn spectroscopy.

>> No.4346094

>>4346053
>various patches of the sky have various ages

Not true different groups of stars have different ages but only when they are bound together, this has nothing to do with position on the sky. You will find old stars next to new when the stars are not bound in clusters.

>> No.4346096

>>4346088
They have convective cores, that's unusual. And by that i simply meant they are not directly observable and that's a big thing in astronomy. We can be quite sure of a red dwarf's fate but we are not certain.

>> No.4346141

>>4346085
Thanks that makes sense.