What Are Stars?
Most recent answer: 10/22/2007
- Jean Carlos Pino (age 13)
William C. McGinnis school, Perth Amboy , NJ.
Stars are gigantic balls of gas, mostly hydrogen gas. There is so much gas and other material that the gravity of this huge gas-ball holds everything together. There is so much gravity that the gas becomes very dense and hot.
Our own sun is a star. Fortunately, we are far enough away from it that the gravity of the gas cant pull us in. It would be rather unpleasant inside of a star.
The gravity is strong enough that it squeezes the gas together so tight that nuclear fusion occurs. That means that the nuclei (centers) of the atoms get stuck together and fuse. This releases a lot of energy and causes the stars to heat up. The heat works its way from the inside of the star to the surface, and then radiates into space. So what we see of stars is the energy released from the nuclear reactions inside their cores and then radiated from the surface. Since most stars are VERY far away, the light takes anywhere from a few years to millions of years to reach us. So the star light that we see is very old indeed.
There are many different kinds of stars. They come in many sizes and colors. Some stars even orbit around each other. We call these binary stars. If you have any more questions about stars, please ask us to tell you more.
Math Dan
(published on 10/22/2007)
Follow-Up #1: venus
- neelkirloskar (age 14)
pune,mah,india
I'm not quite sure how to answer the question about which stars are visible. Whether a star is visible depends both on how much light it gives off and how far away it is.
Mike W.
The number of stars ’visible to the naked eye’ varies. In isolated rural areas or at sea it’s several thousands. In well lighted urban areas it might be 100 or less.
LeeH
(published on 10/22/2007)
Follow-Up #2: other solar systems
- Ogi (age 23)
Canada
Mike W.
(published on 10/22/2007)
Follow-Up #3: sun and stars
- Christine (age 16)
indiana
Mike W.
(published on 04/03/2008)
Follow-Up #4: stars and planets
- nikol (age 31)
greece
There are other types of stars, and somewhat different planets (e.g. bigger colder ones like Jupiter) but I think this description may help your son get started.
Mike W.
(published on 05/09/2008)
Follow-Up #5: other planets
- Rhiannon Jones (age 16)
wales (wrexham)
We really have no idea what fraction of these other planets have life, because we don't know how likely life is to get started even on a hospitable planet.
Mike W,
(published on 07/10/2008)
Follow-Up #6: stars and black holes
- tom barnett (age 12)
brightlingsea colchester essex england
There are probably other connections, but those come to mind.
Mike W.
(published on 07/14/2009)
Follow-Up #7: What are shooting stars?
- ravi (age 13)
london, uk
LeeH
(published on 07/15/2009)
Follow-Up #8: Are the stars we see at night all in our Solar system?
- Tom wells (age 16)
United kingdom
LeeH
(published on 07/25/2009)
Follow-Up #9: Do stars flicker different colors?
- patrick mcmahan (age 26)
s.s. tx. usa
Hi Patrick,
I'm not sure if you're asking if a given star may flicker (or "twinkle") different colors, or if actual, physical color varies from one star to the next.
If it's the former, not exactly. The combination of dust in the Earth's atmosphere and less-than-uniform atmospheric density cause light from distant stars to refract on its way to our eyes, which may result in apparent "twinkling" of various colors. If you'd like to know more about this, please let us know!
However, I'm going to assume the latter -- that you're asking if the stars themselves are actually different colors. In this case, the answer is yes. There are several reasons for this, but temperature at the surface of the star is by far the most important factor. Generally speaking, stars obey the following temperature rules, with hotter stars appearing bluer.
Of course, composition matters too! If you've ever taken an introductory chemistry course, you've likely had an opportunity to watch different elements burn their respective colors. Strontium burns a deep, deep red, barium a brilliant green, potassium a stunning purple, and soon... This is the same phenomenon which allows us to have elaborate fireworks displays every Fourth of July! Stars are by and large composed of the same basic elements (namely, hydrogen and helium) but trace elements like oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, silicon, magnesium, neon, iron and sulfur -- whose concentrations depend very much on the environment in which the star was born -- may add their own colors of combustion to the mix.
It's also worth mentioning that the Doppler Effect means that we see many stars as "red-shifted" (of longer, redder wavelengths than they actually are) because they're moving away from us as the Universe expands. This motion causes the wavelengths of a star's light to spread out behind it, as seen below.
(image source: )
(published on 08/20/2009)
Follow-Up #10: gravity and stars
- Edwin A (age 18)
California
Anyway, gravity doesn't consist of those other types of bonds, which all come from electromagnetic forces. Gravity follows very different laws than electromagnetism does. For example, gravity is always attractive.
There are attempts to at least understand gravity in the same framework as the other forces, but so far those haven't been fully successful. At the level of ordinary experience, gravity is a completely separate force.
Mike W.
(published on 09/18/2009)
Follow-Up #11: At what stage is the evolution of our Sun?
- Tessa (age 20)
Australia
See for some interesting details.
LeeH
(published on 10/09/2009)
Follow-Up #12: Will life end in 4 billion years?
- Arun
Chicago, il
LeeH
(published on 12/29/2009)
Follow-Up #13: Is that the Milky Way?
- aly (age 20)
singapore
.
What you describe seeing was probably the Milky Way. It is the edge-on view of our own galaxy. It does pass through the constellation Orion. The center of the galaxy lies toward the constellation Sagittarius. Our solar system lies about 3/4 of the way to the outer edge.
There is a wealth of information on the web: just google 'Milky Way' and you will be inundated with web sites.
LeeH
(published on 07/01/2010)
Follow-Up #14: Bright stars in the North?
- Charlii (age 17)
United Kingdom
(published on 09/26/2010)
Follow-Up #15: Is the sun ordinary?
- Anonymous
Mike W.
(published on 02/11/2011)
Follow-Up #16: Observing Dead Stars
- steviep (age 57y)
staffs uk
We often hear about how, since the speed of light is a constant, when we look into space we're looking into the past. However, the answer to your question, how many stars that we see are no longer acting as stars, may surprise you! For simplicity, let's assume that we're defining a star as something that is fusing elements together to make heat and light, so that if a star becomes a white dwarf (which still gives off some light) we will say it is dead.
The answer then depends on how you're looking at the sky! If you're looking with the naked eye, then all the stars you are seeing are our nearest neighbors. The Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, and we are seeing the closest stars: most visible to the naked-eye stars are within 4,000 light years. The average lifetime of a star depends on how big it is: the brightest, most massive stars last for about 10 million years; stars like our sun can burn for about 10 billion years, and the dimmest, reddest stars can shine for about 100 billion years! (This last number is theoretical---since the universe is only 13.7 billion years old we haven't seen any of these die out yet.) Since we are only looking back 4,000 years, very few of these stars will be in this last stage of their lives, crossing this threshold during the time light travels from them to us. As a result, probably only a handful of stars visible at night are no longer emitting light.
The answer changes if you have a telescope with you though. With a moderate-sized telescope, you can see the Andromeda Galaxy, just over 2 million light years away. Based on the lifetimes mentioned earlier, in looking at the Andromeda galaxy, 20 percent of the brightest stars are no longer shining. This number is much smaller for the dimmer stars, since they last longer; the dimmest stars are all still there! The dominant type of star in our universe is the dim star, so even in this case probably only hundredths of one percent of stars in the Andromeda Galaxy are not shining any more.
However, if you had a giant telescope, like the in Hawaii or the proposed to be built in Chile, you could observe some of the galaxies farthest away from us: some of these galaxies emitted the light we're seeing 13 billion years ago! At this distance, all the brightest and sun-like stars have stopped emitting light. There are still many dim, red stars from this time still alive, but since these stars are so dim, we don't see them. The light we actually see is primarily from the brightest stars, so here, the vast majority of stars we see are actually now dead.
Thanks for the great question!
Ben M.
(published on 02/18/2011)
Follow-Up #17: If all stars are suns, then why don't we call them suns?
- Bernard (age 62)
Telford,Shropshire,UK
Stars can be suns, if they have inhabitable planets that have cognitive life and they decide to call its life giving radiation their sun. Our very own sun is a star very similar to millions of the stars that we see in our telescopes. What's the difference?
LeeH
(published on 03/07/2011)
Follow-Up #18: Does a star have an atmosphere?
- abraham (age 24)
eritrea
LeeH
(published on 04/18/2011)
Follow-Up #19: seeing star history
- Christina (age 30)
Santa Rosa, CA USA
1. Actually, the oldest ones are about 13 billion years old (as Dr. Evil would realize.)
2. So yes, we'd have to wait a very long time to see how these stars are "now". I use "now" in quotes because there is no unique way of saying what constitutes the same time as now when you are discussing things very far away. Probably the best convention would be "at 13.7 billion years after the Big Bang in their own local time".
3. I actually don't know a good way to explain even Special Relativity to a very young child. Maybe somebody else does.
4. The size of the telescope doesn't have any effect on when in its history you see a particular object. It's just that bigger telescopes let you see more objects, farther away, so you can see ones that were very old. You're seeing Jupiter just half hour to about an hour old (depending on how close it is to earth) either by eye or by telescope.
Mike W.
(published on 11/15/2011)
Follow-Up #20: twinkling stars
- Conor (age 22)
Belfast, N.Ireland
Mike W.
(published on 05/16/2013)
Follow-Up #21: livable planets?
- Daniel (age 17)
Norwich Norfolk England
We didn't say that every star has earth-like planets. Many stars have planets. Some fair fraction of those are likely to be mid-temperature planets maybe somewhat like the Earth. There are so many stars, maybe an infinite number in the universe as a whole, that there are bound to be many Earth-like planets even if most stars don't have them. There are bound to be some that could sustain life. Unless the total number of planets is infinite, it's hard to say with confidence if any others actually do sustain life.
As for the planet "Kepler", we only know what we read on Wikipedia: .
Mike W.
(published on 09/02/2013)
Follow-Up #22: life on other planets
- Rebbecca Bittigar (age 33)
South Carolina
Hi Rebbecca- I've got to disagree with one point you make, namely that we are more knowledgeable than you about how frequently life appears throughout the universe. If it turned out that there was life near one star out of a thousand, I'd be only mildly surprised. If the turned out that there was life near less than one star per 1016, I'd not really be surprised either. If it's the former, then expect to find some evidence in your lifetime. If it's the latter, find other interests. So we really don't have a clue.
Why the great uncertainty? For life to get going, you need some sort of replicator, an entity (chemical, for life as we know it) that can trigger formation of another entity that shares a lot in common with it. Ordinary crystals have that particular property, so the replicator needs something else too, that a range of small changes are possible giving a big variety of possible results. That allows evolution to get going. The problem is that the simplest replicators we know of are already complicated enough to be very unlikely to form directly just by chemical accident even given a nice big planet and millions of years. So the start of life may be a very rare event. On the other hand, there may have been much simpler replicators from which the simplest ones we know evolved. Maybe the simpler ones can form pretty easily, so that life typically gets going on a friendly planet.
Some people argue that since life got going on Earth very quickly after the Earth cooled enough to let water condense, that's evidence that life gets started easily. I have my doubts about that. Getting life started requires keeping a collection of organic molecules including some fairly big polymers together interacting for a while. That should have been much easier when there were just small wet spots on a fairly dry Earth, say in little cracks and crevices in rocks, rather than large oceans for the molecules to wash into. That means that there may have been one best window for starting life, just before the oceans formed. That the start seems to have occurred here in just that window then unfortunately would give us no information of whether such starts are common or rare.
Mike W.
(published on 01/13/2016)