When will the number of stars be a maximum?Are there ways to estimate size of the “whole universe”?When will the Milky Way “arrive” at the Great Attractor, and what all happen then?Will the Universe end by time stopping?What happens to galaxies when they die?Is the Astronomy community still concerned about the lumpyness of matter distribution in the universe?Number of photons in universe? I'll take number from a star in unit time and extrapolateHalf of the Milky Way's baryonic mass is from other galaxies - when did this happen?Dynamical modelling of galaxies with counter-rotating components using the Schwarzschild methodWhat will be the end of the universe?

How do I copy an installed steam game on my PC to an external hard drive?

What power does the UK parliament hold over a Prime Minister whom they refuse to remove from power?

Would it be imbalanced to allow melee enhancing cantrips to be used with ranged attacks?

Tikz node without text

What is the design rationale for having armor and magic penetration mechanics?

Would preaching in a church be advantageous for becoming a lecturer?

Do more Americans want the Bidens investigated than Trump impeached?

Trade a bishop in the opening

This is a Noteworthy Riddle

Hero battle game

Does Mathematica 11 work with MacOS Catalina 10.15

How to treat unhandled exceptions? (Terminate the application vs. Keep it alive)

If I did not sign promotion bonus document, my career would be over. Is this duress?

Why do adjectives come before nouns in English?

In the twin paradox does the returning twin also come back permanently length contracted flatter than the twin on earth?

How to snip same part of screen as last time?

Does a restocking fee still qualify as a business expense?

How do I get my boyfriend to remove pictures of his ex girlfriend hanging in his apartment?

how to say 'nerd' or 'geek' in french?

Is it possible to have 2 ports open on SSH with 2 different authentication schemes?

Are there 99 percentiles, or 100 percentiles? And are they groups of numbers, or dividers or pointers to individual numbers?

the vs. value: what is the difference

What are some non-CS concepts that can be defined using BNF notation?

How do I reset the TSA-unlocked indicator on my lock?



When will the number of stars be a maximum?


Are there ways to estimate size of the “whole universe”?When will the Milky Way “arrive” at the Great Attractor, and what all happen then?Will the Universe end by time stopping?What happens to galaxies when they die?Is the Astronomy community still concerned about the lumpyness of matter distribution in the universe?Number of photons in universe? I'll take number from a star in unit time and extrapolateHalf of the Milky Way's baryonic mass is from other galaxies - when did this happen?Dynamical modelling of galaxies with counter-rotating components using the Schwarzschild methodWhat will be the end of the universe?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;

.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;








22














$begingroup$


There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.



I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.



I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:00







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    ... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 7:48










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    May 6 at 21:34

















22














$begingroup$


There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.



I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.



I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:00







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    ... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 7:48










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    May 6 at 21:34













22












22








22


3



$begingroup$


There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.



I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.



I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




There are very roughly a "mole" of stars in the universe. Wikipedia quotes an estimate of $3 times 10^23$ though the number is associated with some debate and uncertainly.



I'd like to know if there are estimates of when the number of stars in the universe will maximize. Is it expected to increase asymptotically to some maximum, or will it peak and then decrease.



I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be, if brown or black dwarf objects are counted or not. I don't want to pre-specify, it's more likely that a good, well-informed answer will include this information.







cosmology stellar-evolution galactic-dynamics fate-of-universe modeling






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question



share|improve this question








edited May 7 at 0:43







uhoh

















asked May 6 at 3:01









uhohuhoh

10.8k3 gold badges29 silver badges93 bronze badges




10.8k3 gold badges29 silver badges93 bronze badges










  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:00







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    ... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 7:48










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    May 6 at 21:34












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:00







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    ... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
    $endgroup$
    – Chappo
    May 6 at 4:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 7:48










  • $begingroup$
    @RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:07







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    May 6 at 21:34







2




2




$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00





$begingroup$
Good question! The definition will also need to consider whether to include stellar remnants – and it's not a trivial consideration, firstly by proportion (e.g. of the 100 closest stars, 8 are white dwarfs = 8%), and secondly by cumulative effect (most stars end up as stellar remnants). If you include them, then finding a maximum is likely to be surprisingly complex, as it will need to take into account the number of binaries that end up merging, the proportion of SNEs that leave no compact body remnant, the number of stars and compact bodies that fall into SMBHs...
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:00





2




2




$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07





$begingroup$
... and the trajectory of accelerating expansion, i.e. at what far-distant point in time does space expand fast enough to prevent a molecular cloud fragment from collapsing, and thus no new stars can be born?
$endgroup$
– Chappo
May 6 at 4:07





1




1




$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48




$begingroup$
It actually mainly depends on what you define as the "universe" and "when". I have written an answer for the number of stars in a co-moving volume as a function of cosmic epoch. The answer is considerably trickier for the number of stars in the observable universe, which is what wikipedia is talking about (with order of magnitude uncertainties actually).
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 7:48












$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07





$begingroup$
@RobJeffries if there is an estimate out there using any supportable definition of "universe" and "when", that would be just fine. As an aside, I'd thought there was at least some handle on the size/mass of the whole universe based on what is observable and models, but apparently not.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:07





1




1




$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34




$begingroup$
"I suppose this could depend on what the definition of "star" is taken to be" Actually, I think that the question of what "universe" means may be more of an issue. Does it means "everything in existence"? Does it mean "everything that is, as of time t, in the observable universe"? Does it mean "everything that is in space that is now in the observable universe"?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
May 6 at 21:34










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















19
















$begingroup$

TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.



If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).



The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.



We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.



Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.



I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.



The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.



Integrated stellar mass density (from Madau & Dickinson 2014)



If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).



On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.



Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.



Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:14







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    May 6 at 9:26










  • $begingroup$
    "that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    May 6 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    @KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    May 6 at 17:51












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "514"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31782%2fwhen-will-the-number-of-stars-be-a-maximum%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









19
















$begingroup$

TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.



If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).



The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.



We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.



Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.



I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.



The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.



Integrated stellar mass density (from Madau & Dickinson 2014)



If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).



On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.



Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.



Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:14







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    May 6 at 9:26










  • $begingroup$
    "that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    May 6 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    @KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    May 6 at 17:51















19
















$begingroup$

TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.



If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).



The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.



We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.



Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.



I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.



The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.



Integrated stellar mass density (from Madau & Dickinson 2014)



If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).



On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.



Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.



Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:14







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    May 6 at 9:26










  • $begingroup$
    "that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    May 6 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    @KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    May 6 at 17:51













19














19










19







$begingroup$

TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.



If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).



The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.



We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.



Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.



I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.



The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.



Integrated stellar mass density (from Madau & Dickinson 2014)



If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).



On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.



Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.



Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.






share|improve this answer












$endgroup$



TL; DR Somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time. (For a co-moving volume) Now read on.



If stellar remnants are included, then the answer is very far in the future indeed, if and when the constituents of baryons begin to decay. So let's assume that "stars" means those things that are undergoing nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity. Let's further assume that the stellar mass function, ($N(m)$ is the number of stars per unit mass) we see in the neighbourhood of the Sun is representative of populations in all galaxies at all times (difficult to make a start, without assuming this).



The number of stars that have been born is equal to the sum over time (the integral) and over mass of $N(m)$ multiplied by the rate at which mass is turned into stars in a comoving volume of the universe $Phi(t)$.



We then need to subtract a sum over time and mass of the rate of stellar death in the same comoving volume. The rate of stellar death is the rate of stellar birth at a time $t-tau(m)$, where $tau(m)$ is the mass-dependent stellar lifetime. We ignore mass transfer in binary systems and assume that multiples can be treated as independent stellar components.



Thus the number of stars at time $t$ is approximately
$$N_*(t) = int_0^t int_m N(m) Phi(t') - N(m)Phi(t'-tau(m)) dm dt' .$$
To find where this is a maximum, we differentiate with respect to time and then equate to zero. i.e. We look for the time when the stellar birth and death rates are the same.



I was going to (and possibly still will) attempt some sort of analytic approximation, but Madau & Dickinson (2014) have done it better and taken into account the metallicity dependence of stellar lifetimes and the chemical evolution of galaxies. The star formation rate peaked about 10 billion years ago, is more than an order of magnitude lower now and is exponentially decreasing with a time constant of 3.9 billion years.



The integrated stellar mass is shown in their Fig 11 (shown below). It is still increasing today, but at a very low rate and has not passed through a maximum. The reason for this is that most stars have masses of 0.2-0.3 solar masses and lifetimes much longer than the age of the universe. Even if these stars are added at a very slow rate, their death rate is zero at present.



Integrated stellar mass density (from Madau & Dickinson 2014)



If star formation did continue at a low-level then the number of stars would only begin to significantly diminish once the stars near the peak of the stellar mass function, that were born at the earliest times, start to die. The lifetime of a 0.25 solar mass star is around a trillion years (Laughlin et al. 1997).



On the other hand if star formation ceased now then the number of stars would immediately begin to diminish.



Perhaps we could argue that the current exponential decline will continue and the peak
will come in another few billion years when stars of 0.8-0.9 solar masses begin dying off. However, that is futurology given that we have no first principles theory that explains the time-dependence of star formation, so I believe the best answer that can be given is somewhere between now and a few hundred billion years time.



Note that this answer assumes a co-moving volume. If the question asked is phrased in terms of the observable universe then because the number of stars has nearly reached a plateau, then the answer becomes close to whatever age the volume of the observable universe is maximised. I say "close to" because you have to factor in that the observable universe includes stars in distance slices at all cosmic epochs. I am unwilling to undertake this horrendous calculation, but note that the current concordance cosmological model has our observable universe slowly increasing from around a radius of 45 billion light years now, to about 60 billion light years in the far future Davis & Lineweaver 2005, and this may compensate for a slow decline in the number of stars in a co-moving volume.







share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 6 at 17:56

























answered May 6 at 8:11









Rob JeffriesRob Jeffries

61.1k5 gold badges130 silver badges200 bronze badges




61.1k5 gold badges130 silver badges200 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:14







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    May 6 at 9:26










  • $begingroup$
    "that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    May 6 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    @KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    May 6 at 17:51
















  • $begingroup$
    okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 6 at 8:14







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    May 6 at 9:26










  • $begingroup$
    "that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
    $endgroup$
    – Keith McClary
    May 6 at 16:53










  • $begingroup$
    @KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
    $endgroup$
    – Rob Jeffries
    May 6 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    May 6 at 17:51















$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14





$begingroup$
okay this will take some substantial time to read and think about, a few billion years at least. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
May 6 at 8:14





1




1




$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26




$begingroup$
the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Sun Should that be the number of stars per unit mass we see in the population of the Milky Way ?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
May 6 at 9:26












$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53




$begingroup$
"that have (are, or will) undergone nuclear fusion reactions to power their luminosity" This confuses me - does this not include "stellar remnants"?
$endgroup$
– Keith McClary
May 6 at 16:53












$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27




$begingroup$
@KeithMcClary rewrite underway...
$endgroup$
– Rob Jeffries
May 6 at 17:27












$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51




$begingroup$
So we're doomed, Doomed ..... ! :-)
$endgroup$
– StephenG
May 6 at 17:51


















draft saved

draft discarded















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Astronomy Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fastronomy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31782%2fwhen-will-the-number-of-stars-be-a-maximum%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?