Top Document: [sci.astro] Stars (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (7/9) Previous Document: G.01.1 What are all those different kinds of stars? General overview and main sequence stars Next Document: G.01.3 What are all those different kinds of stars? Neutron Stars See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge do the spectral types DA, DC, etc. mean? Author: Mike Dworetsky <mmd@star.ucl.ac.uk> The MK classification system for the vast majority of stars works remarkably well for one simple reason: most stars in the Galactic disk have surface chemical compositions that are broadly similar to each other and the Sun's composition. They are 71 percent hydrogen, 27 percent helium, and 2 percent "metals" (Li--U). Thus, the differences in spectral line strengths that give rise to the familiar OBAFGKM sequence are due to their vast range in surface temperature. The MK system can also classify by absolute stellar brightness: the more subtle differences in the strengths of certain lines at various classes, caused by the different surface gravities of main sequence and supergiant stars, for example, are spoken of as luminosity criteria, because they depend on the size of the star (big stars radiate much more energy than small stars, but their atmospheres are much less dense). The name "white dwarf" for these stars comes from the observed colors of the first examples discovered. They caught the attention of astronomers because they had large masses comparable to the Sun but were hot and very faint, hence extremely small and dense. We now know that there are a few "white dwarfs" that are actually cool enough to look red. The first spectroscopic investigators of white dwarfs tried to fit them into a descriptive system parallel to the MK classes, using the letter D plus a suffix OBAFGK or M, with the letter C added for the cases when the spectra showed no lines (continuous spectra). The types were sometimes supplemented by cryptic abbreviations like "wk" for weak; "s" for sharp-lined, and so on. When the spectra of white dwarfs were investigated in more detail, it proved impossible to categorize them neatly for one increasingly apparent reason: the surface compositions of white dwarfs varied enormously from star to star. Astronomers needed a new scheme to reflect this. In the revised classification scheme, white dwarf designations still start with the letter D to indicate dwarf or "degenerate" stellar structure. A second letter indicates the main spectral features visible: C for a continuous spectrum with no lines, A for Balmer lines of hydrogen with nothing else, B for He I (neutral helium) lines, O for He II with or without He I or H, Z for metal lines (often, strong Ca II lines are seen), and Q for atomic or molecular lines of carbon (C is used for continuous spectra; K for Karbon could be confused with the K stars; so try to think of Qarbon!). These basic types can sometimes mix; DAQ stars are known, for example. A further suffix can be added: P for magnetic stars with polarized light, H for magnetic stars that do not have polarized light, and V for variable. (There is a class of short-period pulsating white dwarfs, called ZZ Ceti stars.) There may be emission lines (E). And if an unusual star still defies classification, it goes into type X. Finally, a number is appended that classifies the star according to its effective temperature based on formulae which use the observed colors: the number is 50400/T rounded to the nearest 0.5, i.e., the value of 50400/temperature, rounded. If white dwarfs with T much higher than 50,000 K are ever found, they could have the number 0 or 0.5 appended. The coolest designation is open-ended; there is a star classified as DC13, for example, which is actually rather red, not white. Thus a hot white dwarf with neutral helium lines might be described as DB2.5; a cooler white dwarf with hydrogen lines, a magnetic field, polarized light, and a trace of carbon might be DAQP6. This system can provide good summary descriptions of the vast majority of white dwarf stars. However, it is a definite move away from the original concept of spectral classification, because it requires photometry and polarimetry as well as visual inspection of a spectrum, in order to make an assignment. But most leading experts on the subject have agreed it was necessary to move in this direction. Some references: Sion, E.M., et al. 1983. Astrophys. J., 269, 253--257 Greenstein, J. 1986. Astrophys. J., 304, 334--355 Wesemael, F. et al. 1993. Publ. Astr. Soc. Pacif., 105, 761--778 (Electronic versions of journal articles can be found on the WWW in postscript and pdf formats via the Astronomical Data Center and its mirrors in Europe, South America and Asia. Start from http://adswww.harvard.edu/ and locate the best mirror for your location.) User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] Stars (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (7/9) Previous Document: G.01.1 What are all those different kinds of stars? General overview and main sequence stars Next Document: G.01.3 What are all those different kinds of stars? Neutron Stars Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|
with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP