Re:CNO neutrinos from the Sun are finally detected
by Zaak on Friday August 07, 2020 @12:53PM
(#24084009)
But what is the effect on lifetime of not having any CNO present? If a present-day massive star would have a lifetime of 10 million years, how long would it live if it was a population III star with no CNO?
Re:CNO neutrinos from the Sun are finally detected
by skykooler on Friday August 07, 2020 @02:48PM
(#24085206)
Carbon is formed in small amounts by normal stellar fusion, and since it is a catalytic process the carbon is conserved. So even an early star would probably have some fusion happening via the CNO cycle.
Re:CNO neutrinos from the Sun are finally detected
by davidcuddeback on Friday August 07, 2020 @01:32PM
(#24084454)
I'm not sure. I think a lack of metals makes a star less stable and burn out more quickly, but I could be wrong on that. There's some episodes of Astronomy Cast and Ask a Spaceman that I think would answer your question about pop3 stars more reliably than I could.
Notice that haiguise wrote "at the core temperature of the Sun." A more massive star has a higher core temperature, and thus haiguise's sentence about fusion rates would no longer apply. Fusion rates are faster at higher temperatures, and that's why more massive stars burn out faster. Notice haiguise wrote "T^4" and "T^20." Our sun is roughly 5000K. Massive stars can exceed 10000K. At twice the temperature, T^4 and T^20 imply 16x and 1,048,576x fusion rates, respectively.
Edited to add: Wikipedia has an HR diagram with labels showing lifespans for stars at different temperatures: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hertzsprung-Russel_S....