How to Crash Stars Together

by Jon Voisey on September 3, 2010

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.

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

Jon is a science educator currently living in Missouri. He is a high school teacher and does outreach with the St. Louis Astronomical society as well as presenting talks on science and related topics at regional conventions. He graduated from the University of Kansas with his BS in Astronomy in 2008 and has maintained the Angry Astronomer blog since 2006. For more of his work, you can find his website here.

  • Olaf

    To illustrate the insanity of a electric star theory.

    Let’s assume that the Sun is + charge, then earth must be – charged otherwise it will get repelled. Here comes the problem, what charge has the moon?

    OK let’s say that the Sun has +++ charge, the Earth has — charge and the moon – charge. So the moon still gets attracted to Earth. Now what would the charge of Jupiter be? And specially his many moons., what would each charge of each moon be and how come none of it’s moon moves in a none-elliptical orbit since the charges would attract-repel-attract-repel depending on the location of the moon and the location of all other moons.

    And it gets worse and worse this theory when you take into account that the planets would lose their charge.

  • http://quantauniverse.com/id66.html jimhenson

    IBEX discovered that inside the solar wind positive charged protons forms a huge 200 AU round heliosphere bubble emitting ENAs that travel large straight distances with minimal changes. it could transport energy and angular momentum (that appears to be gravity) to the heliosphere of every star, this includes the sun and its solar system, as it orbits the center of the galaxy. ENA images produce different plasma object MASSES and energy ranges. ENAs emit no light and have large gravity effects. Its believed that the galactic magnetic field shapes the heliosphere as it drapes over it. The ribbon runs perpendicular to the direction of the galactic magnetic field just outside the heliosphere, and Dave McComas of IBEX says there’s a missing fundamental aspect of the interaction between the heliosphere and the rest of the entire galaxy.

  • Lawrence B. Crowell

    Stars are not appreciably charged. No astrophysicist considers such ideas. This has noting to do with the diffuse plasma at the heliosphere boundary. The motion of large bodies in aggregates of this sort, solar systems, clusters, galaxies and so forth obey Newton’s laws and Newtonian gravity. One does not even need to consider general relativity, unless one is concerned with dynamics close to a black hole.

    LC

  • Olaf

    As usual the tons of blablabla and fuzzy logic taken out of context taken but again no clear numbers no clear maths. And the typical tricks to sidestep the discussion with other none related fuzzy stuff like the heliosphere.

    So I ask the questions to those promoting EU/PC again: if the sun is charged what is its charge and what are the charged for the planets and moons in out solar system? How come the planets move move in an elliptical orbit like there is only one force and it is attracting, never repulsing? Give us numbers and some formula’s!

  • bluestraggler_Fe

    Since I don’t quite know who any of you are at this point, I was being very careful about how I said that the “charged star” notion seems counterintuitive. You may all be astrophysists for all I know. My knowledge is limited to a minor in chemistry with my biology major many years ago. I do read a lot of the articles in Universe Today – I’ve been fascinated by astronomy for a very long time. That said, my point about the neutron star was that if stars had charges, how would you explain a neutron star, which by definition is all neutrons, absent anything but neutral charged particles, ergo no charge. The idea of any bodies on the scale of planets and stars having a charge doesn’t seem realistic. This may be a stretch, but wouldn’t the fact that the strong force is magnitudes greater than gravity imlpy a whole different set of stellar dynamics than what we observe, especially in close proximity like binaries and even globular clusters?

  • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

    @BLUESTRAGGLER_FE,

    I presume that, when you referred to “strong force”, you had meant to say electromagnetic force which is, indeed, 10^36 times stronger than gravity. However, electrostatic attraction is not relevant for large celestial bodies — e.g., moons, planets, stars, and galaxies — for the simple reason that such bodies contain equal numbers of protons (+) and electrons (-); therefore, the protons and electrons conspire to cancel out so perfectly that they have a net electric charge of zero.

  • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

    Addendum: However, nothing “cancels” gravity because it is only attractive, unlike electric forces that can either attract or repel, but all objects having mass are subject to the gravitational force — which only attracts. Therefore, gravitation is the dominant force on the large scale structure of the Universe.

  • Olaf

    @bluestraggler_Fe

    You might not realize but a neutron is basically proton+electron+electron neutrino
    A neutron cancels the proton + charge with the addition of an electron which is -. The electron neutrino has no charge.

    Since all atoms are generally neutral in charge (equal number of protons and electrons) when you press them together to become a neutron star all electrons are pushed inside the nuclear core too. So the net charge stays zero.

    I was thinking first that by some mechanism somehow all electrons could be ejected during an explosion, but when you think about it. That would mean that the star becomes very positive charged and will attract back the ejected electrons ending as a zero charge in the next few thousands years.

    It is insane to go the EU/PC route it only displays that you are very ignorant of physics. It is only possible in a transient state.

    But look deeper, imagine the Sun ejecting a huge solar flare all electrons. What happens is e.g. 1.000.000 Negative charged electrons fly away. Now the sun becomes 1.000.000 charges more positive. The negative and positive attract each other, so the freshly ejected electrons will get attracted back and the positive charged cores will be attracted towards the electrons moving away. I think a ring should be formed around the sun if that were true. of particles that become neutral again (the + and – found each other) and are falling back because of gravity.

  • http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com Jon Voisey

    OLAF: Electrons aren’t the only things streaming off the Sun. The protons that were the nucleus of the atoms from which they were ejected also get blown out of the Sun. Thus, net charge is conserved.

  • Olaf

    @Jon Voisey

    I know!
    I was just doing a thought experiment to check it.
    I was just checking out if is remotely possible and what you should observe if it were true. But the complications get so big very fast that you would be a nut-job if you believed EU to be true. It would only be possible in a works in a SF story.

    A ring around the sun was something I did not expect, it would be cool to create some maths and models for this. But I lack the mathematics skills in this case.

  • DrFlimmer

    @ Olaf

    You might not realize but a neutron is basically proton+electron+electron neutrino

    I’m not quite sure, how you meant this (I guess correctly, but I just want to make sure), so let me add a few words.
    A neutron does not consist of one proton, one electron and one electron neutrino (your words could imply this). You can merge a proton and an electron and what (might) happen then is that one of the up-quarks of the proton changes into a down-quark, consuming the electron and releasing an electron neutrino. This is done by the weak interaction and the proton has become a neutron.

    On a second thought, I hope this was not too technically involved ;)

  • Olaf

    @DrFlimmer

    What DrFlimmer said! LOL
    I thought the quark explanation was too technical so I choose to explain it in “charges” terms.

    I was referring to this: Free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino to become a proton, a process known as beta decay:

    To indicate that protons and electrons could become charge less neutrons neutrons by absorbing the electron when pressed hard enough

    If the pressure is not there because of the neutron stars gravity it decays back in the + and – charge.

    But your explanation is better of course :-)

  • DrFlimmer

    You’re very welcome! ;)

Previous post:

Next post: