Most Massive Star Discovered: Over 300 Suns at Birth!

by Nicholos Wethington on July 22, 2010

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Zooming in on a giant: the Tarantula Nebula in the visible light on the left, a zoomed-in image of the location of R 136 in the center panel, and the R 136 cluster in the lower right of the last panel. Image Credit:ESO/P. Crowther/C.J. Evans

Often, writing about astronomy tends to mirror the job of those writing for the Guinness Book of World Records – just when you think a record is practically unbeatable, somebody else appears to show up the previous record-holder. This is surely the case with the stellar heavyweight (er, “heavymass”) R 136a1, which has been shown by data taken using the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope to tip the stellar scales at 265 times the mass of our Sun. What’s even more impressive is that R 136a1 has lost mass over the course of its lifetime, and likely was about 320 solar masses at birth. That deserves a “Yikes!”

R 136a1 lies in a cluster of young, massive stars with hot surface temperatures that is located inside the Tarantula Nebula. The Tarantula Nebula is nested inside the Large Magellanic Cloud, one of the Milky Way’s closest galactic neighbors, 165,000 light-years away. The cluster is called RMC 136a (or more commonly referred to as R136), and in addition to the whopper that is R 136a1, there are three other stars with masses at birth in the 150 solar mass range.

Extremely massive stars like R 136a1 were previously thought to be unable to form, posing a challenge to stellar physicists as to just how this behemoth came about. It’s possible that it formed by itself in the relatively dense gas and dust of the R136 cluster, or that multiple smaller stars merged to create the larger star at some point early on in its lifetime.

If breaking the mass record weren’t enough, R136a1 also happens to be the most luminous star ever discovered, with an output of energy that is over 10 million times that of the Sun. If you want to learn more about how astronomers determine the mass and luminosity of stars, here is an excellent and thorough introduction to the subject.

To validate the models used in determining the mass and luminosity of the stars in R136, the team of astronomers led by Paul Crowther, Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Sheffield, used the VLT to examine NGC 3603, a closer stellar nursery. NGC 3603 is only 22,000 light years away, and two of the stars in that cluster are in a binary system, which allowed the team to measure their masses.

A comparison of the smallest stars (red dwarfs), Sun-like stars, blue dwarfs, and the most massive star ever discovered, R 136a1. Image Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser

We are lucky to have observed this extremely massive star, as the rule for the most massive stars is, “Live fast, die young.” The more massive a star is, the faster it churns through the fuel that powers its increased luminosity. Our Sun, which has a medium amount of mass in relation to the two extremes, will last for around for about 10 billion years. Smaller, red dwarf stars can last trillions of years, while large stars on the scale of R 136a1 only glimmer in all of their brilliance for millions of years.

What will happen to R 136a1 at the end of its life? Stars with a mass of over 150 Suns ultimately explode in a light show of staggering proportions generated by what’s called a pair-instability supernova. For more on this phenomenon, check out this article from Universe Today from last year.

Source: ESO press release

A nod and a snarky wink to Genevieve Valentine

  • Jon Hanford

    “Lawrence B. Crowell Says:
    July 23rd, 2010 at 3:30 am

    This is a measurement of a higher mass than previously reported. I don’t think this is quite so much an egregious case of plagerism.

    There is an upper limit on stellar mass in a stable configuration. A star above the Eddington mass limit will be very energetic and eject mass by radiation pressure until it mass is reduced to below 150 solar masses.”

    I reprint LC’s post since you must have missed it the first time.

    “Your references are old, and do not precisely match the subject”

    Initially, I thought you were referring to HSBC posts, as they actually contain references.! What, again, are LC references?

    “There isn’t any plagarism going on….”

    And LC never said there was. So, again, another pointless rant that does not advance the conversation one iota.

  • Dark Gnat

    “Watch your fire and check your targets.”

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    I was very careful with my words here. I said “this is UK article is really boarding on plagiarism.

    The ESo article liked here says;

    “Not only is R136a1 the most massive star ever found, but it also has the highest luminosity too, close to 10 million times greater than the Sun. “Owing to the rarity of these monsters, I think it is unlikely that this new record will be broken any time soon,” concludes Crowther.”

    The alleged approximation to plagiarism here centres on the words “new record”. Not only is it false, it has already been determined before by several other astronomers – and without acknowledgement. Worst, it seems that the statement was deliberately made (knowing it was wrong) to only draw attention to the story and by the principle investigator of the study!

    Question. Why did this article somehow became viral in the media? Could it be because of the funding cuts to UK astronomy in recent years, and was politically driven to fund those belated UK astronomers further?

    (See Ian O’Neil’s UT story “of January 28th, 2008; “UK Astronomy Community “Deliberately Sabotaged” By Funding Cuts To Gemini Observatories”
    Could it also have something to do with the UK recently pulling out of the Anglo-Australian Telescope facility in Australia?

    Sorry guys. It seems to me more like a political and cynical way of promoting UK astronomy which has been on the decline in recent years mostly due to the global financial position.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Note: I should add that problems in the UK (an especially University of Sheffield) can be found at; STFC Funding Crisis: Astronomy

    It doesn’t take a genius to realise there are other forces at work here, and not just unfounded or rehashed claims of discovery.

    Cynically, it is probably all do to make the UK astronomy highlighted in the media so their politicians might reverse their budget cuts. That is what is also disgraceful!

  • ND

    Aodhhan,

    I’m really interested in what your credentials are. What is your background in science that makes you think you have the right to call people names and trash them like you do. Who are you?

    Dear UT, I think banning Aodhhan should be considered given his behavior.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Like in any criminal action, in court there has to be a proven motive…

    In this case, we can use Crowther own words as possible motive, which appeared in the Royal Astronomical Society; “Astronomy Forum : Notes from 15th January 2010″;

    “13. Paul Crowther then set out his analysis of different structures for funding UK astronomy.

    The CSR07 [Government Funding ] settlement and resulting STFC allocation led to a disproportionately large and detrimental impact on funding for research in astronomy and space science. In turn, this has caused the press and public perception of UK involvement in fundamental science to be far more negative than in the past.

    Do you guys think this relevant enough?

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    Wow, I made a short comment about this research and the mass of this star and look what happened! I made no claim of plaigerism.

    For some reason Aodhhan has me as a target. To be honest though I sometimes get the sense that Aodhhan gets drunk while writing rants. The reason is that some of his writing borders on incoherence. That he would target me for something Hon. Salacious B. Crumb wrote seems a bit like a drunk driver who merged into the oncoming lane of traffic.

    LC

  • Scrambler Sinister

    Nice to be here as a member of UT. No body is this polite when having conversations on youtube. I feel uplifted.

  • lookingbeyond

    What a heated debate this has become!
    Am i the only one that thought Aodhhan was actually directing his post to Hon. Salacious B. Crumb and there was a strange mixup with names?

    On other thoughts, It might be a bit daunting to see all this heated arguing for any newcomers stumbling on UT for the first time..

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    @ lookingbeyond

    There is no real heated debate here, It is just one individual acting like a jerk whose erratic behaviour is just mimic in previous instances. For some reason this chap has one big chip on his shoulders, and anyone showing knowledge better than he is viciously attacked This individual seems to have very little understanding of science or astronomy and is far too willing to pick a fight – often with absurd notions with the subject or with even the simple concepts. Like the coward he is, he runs away when the going gets tough – at least until the next time. Pity.

    Yes, I agree, he seems to have mixed-up his targets (again). I do suggest you just ignore him and his little rants and pontificaticating mixed up notions.

  • TerryG

    Umm at the risk of discussing astronomy…what detectable signature, if any, would you expect to observe from the event of two stars merging to form a blue hyper-giant?

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    I can’t say too much about stellar mergers. I would tend to think the coalescence would be chaotic an violent. Hot O and B stars are pretty well organized systems, even if they only exist for a little as a few million years.

    Aodhhan is a sort of troll.

    LC

  • TerryG

    Cheers LC. It’s clear that many UT readers enjoy your posts, I’m certainly one of them, please keep them coming.

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    Wow! When I came back to the civilization (aka “web”) from the outback (aka “childhood town”) and noted a 30+ thread I thought it was another EU troll infestation. I happily forgot about our other trolls…

    Since this is a sorry mess (except for the actual discussion, who somehow made it through), I doubt I can add further damage by commenting on it:

    For some reason Aodhhan has me as a target. To be honest though I sometimes get the sense that Aodhhan gets drunk while writing rants.

    Nothing personal, but I believe Aodhhan has targeted both LBC and HSBC in unwarranted attacks at times. I should check, but the subject (of stupid behavior) invites intellectual laziness.

    But yes, there is confusion here. Now I have never been able to tell on a short-term basis between drug abuse and mental disorders, since both seem capable to flip-flop individuals in and out of confused thinking and acting. (Luckily, layman here as in so many other subjects. :-D )

    [Cuts long and in the end pointless analysis of banning vs ignoring.] Guess that is how far I can take this for now.

  • Spoodle58

    @ Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    “Astronomy is not a just popularist view of the universe, it is supposed to work on measured evidence and the scientific method. These astronomers should be drawn and quartered for the deceptions here. I’m already utterly disgusted with this story!”

    Hear hear, I totally agree.

    @ Paul Eaton-Jones

    I’m with you on the models, I was thinking the same.

  • Aqua

    “The higher the Baboon climbs the tree… the more he shows his butt.”

    It appears that the mass in the heads of some of the participants in this room is in fact, much larger than R 136a1!

  • paul_crowther

    Please find answers to some of the queries raised here, incljuding links to relevant, peer-reviewed scientific journal papers: http://pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/r136a1.html

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    It appears that the mass in the heads of some of the participants in this room is in fact, much larger than R 136a1!

    Now there you go again with some unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims, which so impedes the discussion. Hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras.

    People here have some vested interest, skills and knowledge, and it becomes painfully obvious when confused thinking and acting crawls onto the table. This recurrent but sadly unanswered love of zebras of yours is one of those.

    [Sure there can be exceptions, so that there really are airheads on here. But LBC theory is much more likely in any given crowd when cranks have been distinguished.]

  • capper

    how many people were scared away from professional science after meeting a few arrogant windbags during their key formative years? i can think of at least one.

    the are far too many “crumbs” in cosmology.

    …and a big FAIL to larsson for trying to bring EU into the discussion (yet again). F-

  • AvidEnthusiast

    Just a note from an avid astrophysics and theoretical physics observer, a layman…

    1 Aodhhan targeted the wrong commenter (he cited LBC and it should have been HSBC).

    2. HSBC, right or wrong, posted a comment on the article- not a comment about another person. This commenting forum should be about the article always.

    3. HSBC’ comment struck me significantly in that there are different points of view on the article’s content- that there may be politics involved with its publishing- or not. That is exactly what commenting forums are intended to do- to bring discussion to the matter at hand.

    4. I am only an enthusiast in this arena. I have read and listened for decades. I often embrace articles and ideas because I trust that the sources I choose are accurate and reliable. I have learned many times, however, that over time the articles and ideas are often challenged and sometimes remodeled, if not entirely dismissed. As with all discoveries and declarations, the truth will out.
    I expect in time, that the claims about this massive star will be verified, refined, redefined or dismissed.
    Knee jerk reactions such as the comments by HSBC do not alarm me. They help me remember that sometimes we are fed BS. whether the BS is in the comment or the article remains to be seen.
    What I know for certain is that, over many decades I have observed the progression of scientific assertions evolve into tangible truths, or fall to the abyss of ‘what was I thinking?’.
    The truth about this star will be known, but not from boisterous rantings and certainly not from personal attacks on those who comment.

    Bravo to all of you who defend the scientific process! Bah-humbug to those who pollute this forum with petty hate.

Previous post:

Next post: