4 ms·
In the Q&A session they said it's difficult to constrain the age of the long-lived ultraviolet dwarf stars once they finish the active early phase, as their lif
by dwaltrip 10y ago
In the Q&A session they said it's difficult to constrain the age of the long-lived ultraviolet dwarf stars once they finish the active early phase, as their lifecycle progresses so slowly. They live for more than a trillion years, compared to stars like our sun which are larger and burn through their fuel in less than 10 billion years.
It's somewhat counterintuitive, but the bigger a star is, the faster it uses up its fuel, despite having much more of it. As size increases, the rate of fusion in the star's core increases such that the extra fuel isn't enough to prevent the lifespan from shortening. In fact, a common type of supernova occurs in stars that are at least 8 times the size of the sun, burn through their fuel in less than 100 million years, and then go out in style.
Crash course astronomy has some great videos on this stuff:
https://youtu.be/PWx9DurgPn8 https://youtu.be/PWx9DurgPn8
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> it's difficult to constrain the life of the long-lived ultraviolet dwarf stars What's the upper bound on their estimate for TRAPIST-1's age?
- biot 10y agoThe upper bound is the age of the universe.
- perlgeek 10y agoThis may sound a bit snarky, but it's actually quite a good boundary. Current estimations for the age of the Universe are around 12 to 14 billion years, which isn't much compared to a trillion year life span of such a star.
- ianai 10y agoPlot twist: It's actually 2 trillion years old. Everything we know of the universe is wrong! (I'd bet I'm not the only one who'd find that a more interesting option.)
- dwaltrip 10y agoTypo: Ultraviolet should be "ultracool". Darn autocorrect
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]