Posted on by Jon Voisey

The Thick Disk: Galactic Construction Project or Galactic Rejects?

Our Milky Way Gets a Makeover
Our Milky Way Gets a Makeover

[/caption]

The disk of spiral galaxies is comprised of two main components: The thin disk holds the majority of stars and gas and is the majority of what we see and picture when we think of spiral galaxies. However, hovering around that, is a thicker disk of stars that is much less populated. This thick disk is distinct from the thin disk in several regards: The stars there tend to be older, metal deficient, and orbit the center of the galaxy more slowly.

But where this population of the stars came from has been a long standing mystery since its identification in the mid 1970’s. One hypothesis is that it is the remainder of cannibalized dwarf galaxies that have never settled into a more standard orbit. Others suggest that these stars have been flung from the thin disk through gravitational slingshots or supernovae. A recent paper puts these hypothesis to the observational test.

At a first glance, both propositions seem to have a firm observational footing. The Milky Way galaxy is known to be in the process of merging with several smaller galaxies. As our galaxy pulls them in, the tidal effects shred these minor galaxies, scattering the stars. Numerous tidal streams of this sort have been discovered already. The ejection from the thin disk gains support from the many known “runaway” and “hypervelocity” stars which have sufficient velocity to escape the thin disk, and in some cases, the galaxy itself.

The new study, led by Marion Dierickx of Harvard, follows up on a 2009 study by Sales et al., which used simulations to examine the features stars would take in the thick disk should they be created via these methods. Through these simulations, Sales showed that the distribution of eccentricities of the orbits should be different and allow a method by which to discriminate between formation scenarios.

By using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 (SDSS DR7), Dierickx’s team compared the distribution of the stars in our own galaxy to the predictions made by the various models. Ultimately, their survey included some 34,000 stars. By comparing the histogram of eccentricities to that of Sales’ predictions, the team hoped to find a suitable match that would reveal the primary mode of creation.

The comparison revealed that, should ejection from the thin disk be the norm there were too many stars in nearly circular orbits as well as highly eccentric ones. In general, the distribution was too wide. However, the match for the scenario of mergers fit well lending strong credence to this hypothesis.

While the ejection hypothesis or others can’t be ruled out completely, it suggests that, at least in our own galaxy, they play a rather minor role. In the future, additional tests will likely be employed, analyzing other aspects of this population.

Posted on by Jon Voisey

Do Stars Really Form in Clusters?

The long standing view on the formation of stars is that they form in clusters. This theory is supported by understanding of the formation process that requires large clouds of gas and dust to be able to condense. Small clouds with enough mass to only form one star just can’t meet the required conditions to condense. In a large cloud, where conditions are sufficient, once one star begins, the feedback effects from this star will trigger other star formation. Thus, if you get one, you’ll likely get lots.

But a new paper takes a critical look at whether or not all stars really form in clusters.

The main difficulty in answering this question boils down to a simple question: What does it mean to be “in” a cluster. Generally, members of a cluster are stars that are gravitationally bound. But as time passes, most clusters shed members as gravitational interactions, both internal and external, remove outer members. This blurs the boundary between being bound and unbound.

Similarly, some objects that can initially look very similar to clusters can actually be groups known as an association. As the name suggests, while these stars are in close proximity, they are not truly bond together. Instead, their relative velocities will cause the the group to disperse without the need for other effects.

As a result, astronomers have considered other requirements to truly be a member of a cluster. In particular for forming stars, there is an expectation that cluster stars should be able to interact with one-another during the formation process.

Its these considerations that this new team uses as a basis, led by Eli Bressert from the University of Exeter. Using observations from Spitzer, the team analyzed 12 nearby star forming regions. By conducting the survey with Spitzer, an infrared telescope, the team was able to pierce the dusty veil that typically hides such young stars.

By looking at the density of the young stellar objects (YSOs) in the plane of the sky, the team attempted to determine just what portion of stars could be considered true cluster members under various definitions. As might be expected, the answer was highly dependent on the definition used. If a loose and inclusive definition was taken, they determined that 90% of YSOs would be considered as part of the forming cluster. However, if the definition was drawn at the narrow end, the percentage dropped as low as 40%. Furthermore, if the additional criterion of needing to be in such proximity that their “formation/evolution (along with their circumstellar disks and/or planets) may be affected by the close proximity of their low-mass neighbours”, the percentage dropped to a scant 26%.

As with other definition boundaries, the quibbling may seem little more than a distraction. However, with such largely varying numbers attached to them, these triflings carry great significance since inconsistent definitions can greatly distort the understanding. This study highlights the need for clarity in definitions for which astronomers constantly struggle in a muddled universe full overlapping populations and shades of gray.

Posted on by Jon Voisey

The Other End of the Planetary Scale

A comparison of the size of Jupiter, a brown dwarf, a small star and the Sun (Gemini Observatory/Artwork by Jon Lomberg)

[/caption]

The definition of a “planet” is one that has seen a great deal of contention. The ad-hoc redefinition has caused much grief for lovers of the demoted Pluto. Yet little attention is paid to the other end of the planetary scale, namely, where the cutoff between a star and a planet lies. The general consensus is that an object capable of supporting deuterium (a form of hydrogen that has a neutron in the nucleus and can undergo fusion at lower temperatures) fusion, is a brown dwarf while, anything below that is a planet. This limit has been estimated to be around 13 Jupiter masses, but while this line in the sand may seem clear initially, a new paper explores the difficulty in pinning down this discriminating factor. For many years, brown dwarfs were mythical creatures. Their low temperatures, even while undergoing deuterium fusion, made them difficult to detect. While many candidates were proposed as brown dwarfs, all failed the discriminating test of having lithium present in their spectrum (which is destroyed by the temperatures of traditional hydrogen fusion). This changed in 1995 when the first object of suitable mass was discovered when the 670.8 nm lithium line was discovered in a star of suitable mass.

Since then, the number of identified brown dwarfs has increased significantly and astronomers have discovered that the lower mass range of purported brown dwarfs seems to overlap with that of massive planets. This includes objects such as CoRoT-3b, a brown dwarf with approximately 22 Jovian masses, which exists in the terminological limbo.

The paper, led by David Speigel of Princeton, investigated a wide range of initial conditions for objects near the deuterium burning limit. Among the variables included, the team considered the initial fraction of helium, deuterium, and “metals” (everything higher than helium on the periodic table). Their simulations revealed that just how much of the deuterium burned, and how fast, was highly dependent on the starting conditions. Objects starting with higher helium concentration required less mass to burn a given amount of deuterium. Similarly, the higher the initial deuterium fraction, the more readily it fused. The differences in required mass were not subtle either. They varied by as much as two Jovian masses, extending as low as a mere 11 times the mass of Jupiter, well below the generally accepted limit.

The authors suggest that because of the inherent confusion in the mass limits, that such a definition may not be the “most useful delineation between planets and brown dwarfs.” As such, they recommend astronomers take extra care in their classifications and realize that a new definition may be necessary. One possible definition could involve considerations of the formation history of objects in the questionable mass range; Objects that formed in disks, around other stars would be considered planets, where objects that formed from gravitational collapse independently of the object they orbit, would be considered  brown dwarfs. In the mean time, objects such as CoRoT-3b, will continue to have their taxonomic categorization debated.

Posted on by Ryan Anderson

Extrasolar Volcanoes May Soon be Detectable

[/caption]

We’ve all seen pictures of erupting terrestrial volcanoes from space, and even eruptions on Jupiter’s moon Io in the outer solar system, but would it be possible to detect an erupting volcano on an exoplanet? Astronomers say the answer is yes! (with a few caveats)

It’s going to be decades before telescopes will be able to resolve even the crudest surface features of rocky extrasolar planets, so don’t hold your breath for stunning photos of alien volcanoes outside our solar system. But astronomers have already been able to use spectroscopy to detect the composition of exoplanet atmospheres, and a group of theorists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics think a similar technique could detect the atmospheric signature of exo-eruptions.

By collecting spectra right before and right after the planet goes behind its star, astronomers can subtract out the star’s spectrum and isolate the signal from the planet’s atmosphere. Once this is done, they can look for evidence of molecules common in volcanic eruptions. Models suggest that sulfur dioxide is the best candidate for detection because volcanoes produce it in huge quantities and it lasts in a planet’s atmosphere for a long time.

Still, it won’t be easy.

“You would need something truly earthshaking, an eruption that dumped a lot of gases into the atmosphere,” said Smithsonian astronomer Lisa Kaltenegger. “Using the James Webb Space Telescope, we could spot an eruption 10 to 100 times the size of Pinatubo for the closest stars,” she added.

To be detected, exoplanet eruptions would have to be 10 to 100 times larger than the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo shown here. Image source: USGS

In 1991 Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines belched 17 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Volcanic eruptions are ranked using the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI). Pinatubo ranked ‘colossal’ (VEI of 6) and the largest eruption in recorded history was the ‘super-colossal’ Tambora event in 1815. With a VEI of 7 it was about 10 times as large as Pinatubo. Even larger eruptions (more than 100 times larger than Pinatubo) on Earth are not unheard of: geologic evidence suggests that there have been 47 such eruptions in the past 36 million years, including the eruption of the Yellowstone caldera about 600,000 years ago.

The best candidates for detecting extrasolar volcanoes are super-earths orbiting nearby, dim stars, but the Kaltenegger and her colleagues found that volcanic gases on any earth-like planet up to 30 light years away might be detectable. Now they just have to wait until the James Webb Space Telescope is launched 2014 to test their prediction.

Posted on by Jon Voisey

Aesthetics of Astronomy

This Hubble image reveals the gigantic Pinwheel Galaxy (M101), one of the best known examples of "grand design spirals," and its supergiant star-forming regions in unprecedented detail. Astronomers have searched galaxies like this in a hunt for the progenitors of Type Ia supernovae, but their search has turned up mostly empty-handed. Credit: NASA/ESA
This Hubble image reveals the gigantic Pinwheel Galaxy (M101), one of the best known examples of "grand design spirals". Credit: NASA/ESA

[/caption]

When I tell people I majored in astronomy, the general reaction is one of shock and awe. Although people don’t realize just how much physics it is (which scares them even more when they found out), they’re still impressed that anyone would choose to major in a physical science. Quite often, I’m asked the question, “Why did you choose that major?”

Only somewhat jokingly, I reply, “Because it’s pretty.” For what reasons would we explore something if we did not find some sort of beauty in it? This answer also tends to steer potential follow up questions to topics of images they’ve seen and away from topics from half-heard stories about black holes from sci-fi movies.

The topic of aesthetics in astronomy is one I’ve used here for my own devices, but a new study explores how we view astronomical images and what sorts of information people, both expert and amateur, take from them.

The study was conducted by a group formed in 2008 known as The Aesthetics and Astronomy Group. It is comprised of astrophysicists, astronomy image development professionals, educators, and specialists in the aesthetic and cognitive perception of images. The group asked to questions to guide their study:

  1. How much do variations in presentation of color, explanatory text, and illustrative scales affect comprehension of, aesthetic attractiveness, and time spent looking at deep space imagery?
  2. How do novices differ from experts in terms of how they look at astronomical images?

Data to answer this question was taken from two groups; The first was an online survey taken by volunteers from solicitations on various astronomy websites and included 8866 respondents. The second group was comprised of four focus groups held at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

To analyze how viewers viewed color, the web study contained two pictures of the elliptical galaxy NGC 4696. The images were identical except for the colors chosen to represent different temperatures. In one image, red was chosen to represent hot regions and blue for cold regions. In the other version, the color scheme was reversed. A slight majority (53.3% to 46.7%) responded saying they preferred the version in which blue was assigned to be the hotter color. When asked which image they thought was the “hotter” image, 71.5% responded that the red image was hotter. Since astronomical images are often assigned with blue as the hotter color (since hotter objects emit shorter wavelength light which is towards the blue end of the visible spectrum), this suggests that the public’s perception of such images is likely reversed.

A second image for the web group divided the participants into 4 groups in which an image of a supernova remnant was shown with or without foreground stars and with or without a descriptive caption. When asked to rate the attractiveness, participants rated the one with text slightly higher (7.96 to 7.60 on a 10 point scale). Not surprisingly, those that viewed the versions of the image with captions were more likely to be able to correctly identify the object in the image. Additionally, the version of the image with stars was also more often identified correctly, even without captions, suggesting that the appearance of stars provides important context. Another question for this image also asked the size in comparison to the Earth, Solar System, and Galaxy. Although the caption gave the scale of the SNR in lightyears, the portion that viewed the caption did not fare better when asked to identify the size revealing such information is beyond the limit of usefulness.

The next portion showed an image of the Whirlpool galaxy, M51 and contained either, no text, a standard blurb, a narrative blurb, or a sectionized caption with questions as headers. Taking into consideration the time spent reading the captions, the team found that those with text spent more time viewing the image suggesting that accompanying text encourages viewers to take a second look at the image itself. The version with a narrative caption prompted the most extra time.

Another set of images explored the use of scales by superimposing circles representing the Earth, a circle of 300 miles, both, or neither onto an image of spicules on the Sun’s surface, with or without text. Predictably, those with scales and text were viewed longer and the image with both scales was viewed the longest and had the best responses on a true/false quiz over the information given by the image.

When comparing self-identified experts to novices, the study found that both viewed uncaptioned images for similar lengths of time, but for images with text, novices spent an additional 15 seconds reviewing the image when compared to experts. Differences between styles of presenting text (short blurb, narrative, or question headed), novices preferred the ones in which topics were introduced with questions, whereas experts rated all similarly which suggested they don’t care how the information is given, so long as it’s present.

The focus groups were given similar images, but were prompted for free responses in discussions.

<

p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>[T]he non-professionals wanted to know what the colors represented, how the images were made, whether the images were composites from different satellites, and what various areas of the images were. They wanted to know if M101 could be seen with a home telescope, binoculars, or the naked eye.

Additionally, they were also interested in historical context and insights from what professional astronomers found interesting about the images.

Professionals, on the other hand, responded with a general pattern of “I want to know who made this image and what it was that they were trying to convey. I want to judge whether this image is doing a good job of telling me what it is they

wanted me to get out of this.” Eventually, they discussed the aesthetic nature of the images which reveals that “novices … work from aesthetics to science, and for astrophysicists … work from science to aesthetics.”

Overall, the study found an eager public audience that was eager to learn to view the images as not just pretty pictures, but scientific data. It suggested that a conversational tone that worked up to technical language worked best. These findings can be used to improve communication of scientific objectives in museums, astrophotography sections of observatories, and even in presentation of astronomical images and personal conversation.

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Win ‘Star Walk’ and ‘Solar Walk’ Astronomy Apps

I’ve had a couple of people excitedly show me the Star Walk astronomy app on their iPhones and ipads, and it really is great. You can hold your device up to the sky and it will show you a sky map of your exact position. Move your device around the sky, and it moves with you. It is a very high quality, dynamic and realistic stargazing guide, which — if you are a beginning or experienced astronomer — makes skywatching easy for everybody! There is also a “Solar Walk” app — which has very cool 3D images, so grab your 3D glasses to fully enjoy. See more about this app below.
Continue reading “Win ‘Star Walk’ and ‘Solar Walk’ Astronomy Apps”

Posted on by Nancy Atkinson

Hubble Spies an Amazing Cosmic Spiral

An Extraordinary Celestial Spiral. Credit: ESA/NASA & R. Sahai

[/caption]

The Hubble Space Telescope’s Advanced Camera for Surveys has captured a remarkable image of a spiral in space. No, not a spiral galaxy, (and not another Norway Spiral!) but the formation of an unusual pre-planetary nebula in one of the most perfect geometrical spirals ever seen. The nebula, called IRAS 23166+1655, is forming around the star LL Pegasi (also known as AFGL 3068) in the constellation of Pegasus.

The image shows what appears to be a thin spiral pattern of amazing precision winding around the star, which is itself hidden behind thick dust. Mark Morris from UCLA and an international team of astronomers say that material forming the spiral is moving outwards at a speed of about 50,000 km/hour and by combining this speed with the distance between layers, they calculate that the shells are each separated by about 800 years.

The spiral pattern suggests a regular periodic origin for the nebula’s shape, and astronomers believe that shape is forming because LL Pegasi is a binary star system. One star is losing material as it and the companion star are orbiting each other. The spacing between layers in the spiral is expected to directly reflect the orbital period of the binary, which is estimated to be also about 800 years.

A progression of quasi-concentric shells has been observed around a number of preplanetary nebulae, but this almost perfect spiral shape is unique.

Morris and his team say that the structure of the AFGL 3068 envelope raises the possibility that binary companions are responsible for quasi-concentric shells in most or all of the systems in which they have been observed, and the lack of symmetry in the shells seen elsewhere can perhaps be attributed to orbital eccentricity, to different projections of the orbital planes, and to unfavorable illumination geometries.

Additionally – and remarkably — this object may be illuminated by galactic light.

This image appears like something from the famous “Starry Night” painting by Vincent van Gogh, and reveals what can occur with stars that have masses about half that of the Sun up to about eight times that of the Sun. They do not explode as supernovae at the ends of their lives, but instead can create these striking and intricate features as their outer layers of gas are shed and drift into space. This object is just starting this process and the central star has yet to emerge from the cocoon of enveloping dust.

Abstract: A Binary-Induced Pinwheel Outflow from the Extreme Carbon Star, AFGL 3068

Source: ESA

Posted on by Ryan Anderson

Herschel Finds Water Around a Carbon Star

Herschel image of the carbon star CW Leonis. The arc visible to the left of the star is a bow showck, where the stellar wind encounters the interstellar medium. ESA/PACS/SPIRE/MESS Consortia

[/caption]

There’s something strange going on around the red giant star CW Leonis (a.k.a. IRC+10216). Deep within the star’s carbon-rich veil, astronomers have detected water vapor where no water should be.

CW Leonis is similar in mass to the sun, but much older and much larger. It is the nearest red giant to the sun, and in its death throes it has hidden itself in a sooty, expanding cloud of carbon-rich dust. This shroud makes CW Leonis almost invisible to the naked eye, but at some infrared wavelengths it is the brightest object in the sky.

Water was originally discovered around CW Leonis in 2001 when the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS) found the signature of water in the chilly outer reaches of the star’s dusty envelope at a temperature of only 61 K. This water was assumed to be evidence for vaporizing comets and other icy objects around the expanding star. New observations with the SPIRE and PACS spectrometers on the Herschel Space Observatory reveal that there’s something much more surprising going on.

“Thanks to Herschel’s superb sensitivity and spectral resolution, we were able to identify more than 60 lines of water, corresponding to a whole series of energetic levels of the molecule,” explains Leen Decin from the University of Leuven and leader of the study. The newly-detected spectral lines indicate that the water vapor is not all in the cold outer envelope of the star. Some of it is much closer to the star, where temperatures reach 1000 K.

No icy fragments could exist that close to the star, so Decin and colleagues had to come up with a new explanation for the presence of the hot water vapor. Hydrogen is abundant in the envelope of gas and dust surrounding carbon stars like  CW Leonis, but the other building block of water, oxygen, is typically bound up in molecules like carbon monoxide (CO) and silicon monoxide (SiO). Ultraviolet light can split these molecules, releasing their stored oxygen, but red giant stars don’t make much UV light so it has to come from somewhere else.

An illustration of the chemical reactions caused by interstellar UV light interacting with molecules surrounding CW Leonis. ESA. Adapted from L. Decin et al. (2010)

The dusty envelopes around carbon stars are known to be clumpy, and that turns out to be the key to explaining the mysterious water vapor. The patchy structure of the shroud around CW Leonis lets UV light from interstellar space into the depths of the star’s envelope. “Well within the envelope, UV photons trigger a set of reactions that can produce the observed distribution of water, as well as other, very interesting molecules, such as ammonia (NH3),” says Decin. “This is the only mechanism that explains the full range of the water’s temperature.”

In the coming months, astronomers will test this hypothesis by using Herschel to search for evidence of water near other carbon stars.

Posted on by Jon Voisey

The Black Hole/Globular Cluster Correlation

[/caption]

Often in astronomy, one observable property traces another property which may be more difficult to observe directly; X-ray activity on stars can be used to trace turbulent heating of the photosphere. CO is used to trace cold H2. Sometimes these correlations make sense. Activities in stars produce the X-ray emissions. Other times, the tracer seems distantly related at best.

This is the case of a newly discovered correlation between the mass of the central black hole of galaxies and the number of globular clusters they contain. What can this relationship teach astronomers? Why does it hold for some types of galaxies better than others? And where does it come from in the first place.

The mass of a galaxy’s super massive black hole (SMBH) is known to have a strong relationship between many features of their host galaxies. It has identified to follow the range of velocities of stars in the galaxy, the mass and luminosity of the bulge of spiral galaxies, and the total amount of dark matter in galaxies. Because dark matter in the halo of galaxies and the luminosity have also been known to correspond to the number of globular clusters, Andreas Burkert of the Max-Planck-Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany, and Scott Tremaine at Princeton wondered if they could cut out the middlemen of dark matter and luminosity and still maintain a strong correlation between the central SMBH and the number of globular clusters.

Their initial investigation involved only 13 galaxies, but a follow-up study by Gretchen and William Harris and submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, increased the number of galaxies included in the survey to 33. The results of these studies indicated that for elliptical galaxies, the SMBH-GC relationship is evident. However, for lenticular galaxies there was no clear correlation. While there appeared to be a trend for classical spirals, the small number of data points (4) would not provide a strong statistical case independently, but did appear to follow the trend established by the elliptical galaxies.

Although the correlation appeared strong in most cases, about 10% of the galaxies included in the larger surveys were clear outliers. This included the Milky Way which has a SMBH mass that falls significantly short of the expectation from cluster number. One source of error the authors of the original study suspect is that it is possible that, in some cases, objects identified as globular clusters may have been misidentified and in actuality, be the cores of tidally stripped dwarf galaxies. Regardless, the relationship as it stands presently, seems to be quite strong and is even more tightly defined than that of the correlation between that of the SMBH mass and velocity dispersion that implied the potential relationship in the first place. The reason for the discordance in lenticular galaxies has not yet been explained and no reasons have yet been postulated.

But what of the cause of this unusual relation? Both sets of authors suggest the connection lies in the formation of the objects. While distinct in most respects, both are fed by major merger events; Black holes gain mass by accreting gas and globular clusters are often formed from the resulting shocks and interactions. Additionally, the majority of both types of objects formed at high redshifts.

Sources:

A correlation between central supermassive black holes and the globular cluster systems of early-type galaxies

The Globular Cluster/Central Black Hole Connection in Galaxies

Posted on by Jon Voisey

How to Crash Stars Together

Globular Cluster
A Hubble Space Telescope image of the typical globular cluster Messier 80, an object made up of hundreds of thousands of stars and located in the direction of the constellation of Scorpius. The Milky Way galaxy has an estimated 160 globular clusters of which one quarter are thought to be ‘alien’. Image: NASA / The Hubble Heritage Team / STScI / AURA. Click for hi-resolution version.

[/caption]

The math is simple: Star + Other star = Bigger star.

While conceptually this works well, it fails to take into account the extremely vast distances between stars. Even in clusters, where the density of stars is significantly higher than in the main disk, the number of stars per unit volume is so low that collisions are scarcely considered by astronomers. Of course, at some point the stellar density must reach a point at which the chance for a collision does become statistically significant. Where is that tipping point and are there any locations that might actually make the cut?

Early in the development of stellar formation models, the necessity of stellar collisions to produce massive stars was not well constrained. Early models of formation via accretion hinted that accretion may be insufficient, but as models became more complex and moved into three dimensional simulations, it became apparent that collisions simply weren’t needed to populate the upper mass regime. The notion fell out of favor.

However, there have been two recent papers that have explored the possibility that, while still certainly rare, there may be some environments in which collisions are likely to occur. The primary mechanism that assists in this is the notion that, as clusters sweep through the interstellar medium, they will inevitably pick up gas and dust, slowly increase in mass. This increase mass will cause the cluster to shrink, increasing the stellar density. The studies suggest that in order for the probability of collision to be statistically significant, a cluster would be required to reach a density of roughly 100 million stars per cubic parsec. (Keep in mind, a parsec is 3.26 light years and is roughly the distance between the sun, and our nearest neighboring star.)

Presently, such a high concentration has never been observed. While some of this is certainly due to the rarity of such densities, observational constraints likely play a crucial role in making such systems difficult to detect. If such high densities were to be achieved, it would require extraordinarily high spatial resolution to distinguish such systems. As such, numerical simulations of extremely dense systems will have to replace direct observations.

While the density necessary is straightforward, the more difficult topic is what sorts of clusters might be capable of meeting such criteria. To investigate this, the teams writing the recent papers conducted Monte Carlo simulations in which they could vary the numbers of stars. This type of simulation is essentially a model of a system that is allowed to play forward repeatedly with slightly different starting configurations (such as the initial positions of the stars) and by averaging the results of numerous simulations, an approximate understanding of the behavior of the system is reached. An initial investigation suggested that such densities could be reached in clusters with as little as a few thousand stars provided gas accumulation were sufficiently rapid (clusters tend to disperse slowly under tidal stripping which can counteract this effect on longer timescales). However, the model they used contained numerous simplifications since the investigation into the feasibility of such interactions was merely preliminary.

The more recent study, uploaded to arXiv yesterday, includes more realistic parameters and finds that the overall number of stars in the clusters would need to be closer to 30,000 before collisions became likely. This team also suggested that there were more conditions that would need to be satisfied including rates of gas expulsion (since not all gas would remain in the cluster as the first team had assumed for simplicity) and the degree of mass segregation (heavier stars sink to the center and lighter ones float to the outside and since heavier ones are larger, this actually decreases the number density while increasing the mass density).  While many globular clusters can easily meet the requirement of number of stars, these other conditions would likely not be met. Furthermore, globular clusters spend little time in regions of the galaxy in which they would be likely to encounter sufficiently high densities of gas to allow for accumulation of sufficient mass on the necessary timescales.

But are there any clusters which might achieve sufficient density? The most dense galactic cluster known is the Arches cluster. Sadly, this cluster only reaches a modest ~535 stars per cubic parsec, still far too low to make a large number of collisions likely. However, one run of the simulation code with conditions similar to those in the Arches cluster did predict one collision in ~2 million years.

Overall, these studies seem to confirm that the role of collisions in forming massive stars is small. As pointed out previously, accretion methods seem to account for the broad range of stellar masses. Yet in many young clusters, still forming stars, rarely do astronomers find stars much in excess of ~50 solar masses. The second study this year suggests that this observation may yet leave room for collisions to play some unexpected role.

(NOTE: While it may be suggested that collisions could also be considered to take place as the orbit of binary stars decays due to tidal interactions, such processes are generally referred to as “mergers”. The term “collision” as used in the source materials and this article is used to denote the merging of two stars that are not gravitationally bound.)

Sources:

Stellar collisions in accreting protoclusters: a Monte Carlo dynamical study

Collisional formation of very massive stars in dense clusters