(study island answer= all of these statements are true)
Stars with masses less than 1.6 × 1029 kg become brown dwarfs because they are unable to reach high enough temperatures for hydrogen fusion to take place.
Extremely massive stars are able to produce supernovas, or stellar explosions, when they cease to undergo nuclear fusion or when they undergo a sudden gravitational collapse.
Low-mass stars develop more slowly than more massive stars; their lifetimes can last trillions of years as opposed to only a few million years.
The key comes from understanding nuclear fusion. More mass means more gravity so you would assume that it also means more density, however more mass means a greater percentage of the star is available for fusion. Since fusion is the force pushing out on a star a greater percentage of fusion means a bigger diameter for the star. It just so happens that the volume of fusion increases faster then the gravity does by adding constant amounts of mass. Thus low mass stars are denser than high mass stars. However, High mass stars also live much shorter lives since they burn more fuel at one time.
A low-mass star has a lower temperature and pressure. As a result, it burns its hydrogen fuel much slower, shines much less brightly, and lasts much longer. The most massive stars might stay only a few million years on the main sequence, a star like our Sun a few billion years, and red dwarves - stars that are significantly less massive than our Sun - trillions of years.
Actually, our Sun is a star. So yes and no, there are some stars hotter than our Sun and there are some stars that are not.
Because they burn out faster. Although they have higher mass.
No. As a general rule, high mass stars are hotter than lower mass stars.
The sun is an intermediate-mass star.
yes
Beacuse they are dimmer, but they're also bigger than the main sequence stars.
above the main-sequence stars
The HR diagram does not reference stars on their way to the main sequence, only during or after.
Such stars consist mainly of hydrogen-1.
A star on "main sequence" is a period in a stars evolution.A white dwarf is a stellar remainA supergiant star is the size of a very big star.So they are completely different and not even related.
No. Main sequence stars are simply stars that are fusing hydrogen into helium and have a specific relationship between color and luminosity. They range from red dwarfs to large O-type main sequence stars.
The differences in spectrum are mainly due to: * Differences in temperature between the stars * Differences in chemical composition * Differences in relative movement (redshift / blueshift, due to the Doppler effect)
"main sequence" is the tern.
Nebula- protostar- Main Sequence Main Sequence- Red Giant- planetary nubula- white dwarf- black dwarf Main Sequence- Red Supergiant- supernova explosion- Nuetron star or a black hole
The more stars a hotel has, the better it is.
There are billions of stars that are not on the main sequence.
Of the stars you can see from Earth, 90% are in the main sequence.
The smallest stars in the main sequence are the stars with cooler surface temperatures.
"Interstellar" means "between the stars". "Interstellar differences" is not a term commonly used in astronomy.
main sequence stars , our sun is also a main sequence star
About 90% of the observed stars are on the main sequence. See related question