Practically every theory of stellar evolution which has ever been
propounded has imagined the march of the stellar army to be of the
same general type as that just described, although perhaps present-day
opinion is inclined to treat the main-sequence as the principal line of
march, whereas earlier theories supposed the youngest stars to march
solely along the red giant branch, only joining the main-sequence with
middle age. The first serious theory of all, that of Lockyer, was
expressed in terms of branches of ascending and descending temperature,
these together forming the last-mentioned line of march in the Russell
diagram. A theory which Russell propounded in 1913 again assigned
to the stars the lines of march just described. It also attempted a
physical explanation, since abandoned, as to why the stars followed
these particular paths rather than others. His more recent theory
of 1925 only differed from his earlier theory in giving the new
explanation, which we have already discussed (p. 293), as to why the
stars followed these particular paths.
At present, it is probably fair to say that nearly, and perhaps quite,
all astronomers are agreed that the evolutionary paths of the stars
are of the general type we have described. Some stars start as red
giants, some as blue, some possibly in intermediate conditions. As
they age, all move downwards in the Russell diagram, their various
paths converging to a point at the fork of the reversed γ shewn in fig.
22, and after passing this point they move down the main-sequence.
On the other hand, there is the widest difference of opinion as to
the physical interpretation which is to be assigned to these paths.
Most astronomers are probably suspending judgment until some definite
observational evidence is obtained to decide between conflicting
theories.
When the stars first came into being as flecks of fiery spray thrown
off by spinning nebulae, they would consist of mixtures of atoms of all
kinds, some perhaps being so short-lived as to transform themselves
almost at once into radiation, and others having such long lives
that they may properly be described as permanent. Except for a small
number of radio-active atoms, the earth must consist entirely of
atoms of this latter type. Calculation shews that terrestrial atoms
must have enormously longer lives than the average stellar atom,
otherwise their self-annihilation would make the earth too hot for
habitation. The permanent atoms in a star contribute almost nothing to
its energy-generating capacity, and so merely add to its weight. The
shortest lived atoms of all contribute greatly to the star’s generation
of energy while adding but little to its weight. In general the shorter
the life of any type of atom, the greater the proportion of its numbers
annihilated per year, and so the greater the amount of energy it
generates per ton of weight.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account