4 ms·
Why wouldn't that have already been the assumption? When we look at distant galaxies we are looking billions of years in the past; so it would seem natural to f
by jeremyjh 4y ago
Why wouldn't that have already been the assumption? When we look at distant galaxies we are looking billions of years in the past; so it would seem natural to find more heavy stars there that haven't burned out like they have more locally.
- superjan 4y agoI expect this effect is not ignored. But please note that heavy stars do not burn in billions of years but in millions. Not seeing them locally suggests that we have slower starformation, not that we had more of them (heavy stars) billions of years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
- denton-scratch 4y ago> it would seem natural to find more heavy stars there that haven't burned out Is that right? I thought the really, really big stars in the early universe burned-out in as little as a few million years.