4 ms·
to a point you are right, but clearly there is some boundary, right? imagine a solid object with a mass just below the Chandrasekhar limit and a temperature nea
by cobbzilla 8y ago
to a point you are right, but clearly there is some boundary, right? imagine a solid object with a mass just below the Chandrasekhar limit and a temperature near absolute zero. Don't tell me hurtling that into the Sun will make it burn hotter. And even if it would (or a smaller object) in the long run, there would at least be some period of time before the incoming matter reached fusionable temperatures, reducing power output in the short term.
- sudhirj 8y agoSeems unlikely for fusion. Think of it from the point of view of star formation - the gas that coalesces into a ball is already super cold from floating around in space. The heat for fusion comes from gravity compressing the matter, not from the starting heat energy present in the matter itself. So yeah, you can't really add cold stuff to starts to extinguish them - stars are made from absolute ice to being with.
- cobbzilla 8y agowow. i had never thought of it like that. thank you.
- dc443 8y agoya, the steady-state temp of a star is a byproduct of its fusion process, which is directly controlled by the pressure of gravity. More mass, more gravity... the kinetic energy of the temperature of that mass pales in comparison to the E=mc^2 energy contained in that mass.
- ben_w 8y agoI think you just described what happens to a stellar core during a supernova. The temperature difference between the surface and core of a red giant is so large the surface might as well be “near absolute zero”.