3 ms·
If Jupiter was a failed star, it failed big time. "Although Jupiter would need to be about 75 times more massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star,[66] its di
by lukan 2y ago
If Jupiter was a failed star, it failed big time.
"Although Jupiter would need to be about 75 times more massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star,[66] its diameter is sufficient as the smallest red dwarf may be only slightly larger in radius than Saturn."
It got as big as it could be, though.
"Theoretical models indicate that if Jupiter had over 40% more mass, the interior would be so compressed that its volume would decrease despite the increasing amount of matter. For smaller changes in its mass, the radius would not change appreciably.[63] As a result, Jupiter is thought to have about as large a diameter as a planet of its composition and evolutionary history can achieve.[64] The process of further shrinkage with increasing mass would continue until appreciable stellar ignition was achieved"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter
- kulahan 2y agoI think the point is that it's pretty darn close to the very fuzzy limit of when something can be a star vs. when it can't. If it were off in space on its own, rather than orbiting our star, it might be a contentious classification
- vikingerik 2y agoNo - the definition of a star isn't fuzzy at all. It's defined by hydrogen fusion - if it's doing that (or did in the past), it's a star, or if it isn't then it's not. Jupiter fails this by a factor of 75. Brown dwarfs (which fuse deuterium but not regular hydrogen, starting at about 13x Jupiter's mass) were thought to be in a fuzzy area, but then their own category was created for them.
- kulahan 2y agoThankfully I didn’t say “what a star is” was the fuzzy thing! :)