Main sequence is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Could someone explain the reason why stars on this sequence are called "dwarf stars"? The article doesn't explain the origin of the term at all. -- LostLeviathan 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
These stars are hot, dim, and tiny compared to the Sun. They are actually remnants of stars. They are called dwarfs simply because they are very small. There is no real "origin" of the term.
Actually now that I reread the paragraph, it is totally wrong. Type-M Red dwarfs are main sequence stars but so are Type-O blue supergiants.
Roadrunner (
talk)
05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if there was some historical/jargon reason to call all main sequence stars "dwarfs", for a general audience it seems ridiculously misleading to call them that. To people who have a little bit of astronomy knowledge, "dwarf" calls to mind the white, black, brown, and red dwarf stars, and to people who have no astronomy knowledge it brings to mind the word "small". Show any layperson the size comparison picture of Rigel B versus the Sun and tell them it's a dwarf, and see what they say. "Main sequence star" is less ambiguous without being any less precise. -- 142.25.102.130 ( talk) 00:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The chart here does not have the same values as the chart here. Both are part of Wikipedia. Can somebody fix this? JW Bjerk ( talk) 02:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anybody watching this has an account on the Simple English Wikipedia, but the description there seems a little messed up. In particular, the CNO cycle occurs with higher mass stars, rather than lower mass stars. There are a few other minor inconsistencies as well. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a few contradictions in the opening section. Convection as well, first it says that large stars have convection, with smaller having less convection. Then it says smaller are increasing convection. I don't know enough about this to tell which is wrong, but these closing paragraphs aren't right. Saw a similar contradiction on another star section about white dwarfs. Might want to check if someone has been swapping sentences for their opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.231.254 ( talk) 17:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
What other types of stars are there other than main-sequence? What type is our sun? I think these points should be address in the introductory part of the article. 188.169.229.30 ( talk) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Main sequence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Referring to white dwarfs, the article states: "These represent the final evolutionary stage of many main-sequence stars." It would more clearly represent the source if it stated: "These are an evolutionary stage many stars reach long after leaving the main-sequence." - Fartherred ( talk) 16:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The equation for main-sequence lifespan does not give results that match the numbers I'm seeing in other sources, such as http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/astrophysics/stellarevolution_mainsequence.html. Does that equation only apply to a specific range of stellar masses, or are the above website and/or the book that supplied that equation out of date? Or am I just not understanding the math? I can say that the equation does not match the results of this study for stars <0.25 solar masses: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/304125/pdf;jsessionid=EA018F69CE41C137D0722C4B2B961C88.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org 2601:441:4180:2440:3D40:64B1:E56A:1F9 ( talk) 19:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Main sequence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Would someone look at the "Further reading" section? 23 entries are not considered a reasonable number and the section is subject to various "External links" guidelines. Otr500 ( talk) 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, I've known one of the stars in the Beta Centauri system to be a "blue dwarf" - when I mean "dwarf", I mean main sequence star.
But why are O and B (early)-type main sequence stars never referred to as "blue dwarfs"? They are not as luminous as even their giant and supergiant counterparts, and not all of the "blue dwarfs" expected to form when red dwarfs exhaust their hydrogen supply are expected to be blue, but rather have temperatures just as hot as the Sun (just like the blue loop). The subdwarf O stars and subdwarf B stars are already almost as large as the Sun, but not even as luminous.
105.98.210.26 ( talk) 23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I was looking for the history of the idea that nuclear fusion was the source of stellar energy. As I understand it, Payne-Gaposchkin first showed that stars are mainly hydrogen and helium. But I don't know who and when suggested that hydrogen fusion would account for stellar energy. Before P-G, stellar energy was a mystery. But I cannot find any discussion in Wikipedia for this major discovery, building on P-G's surprising result about hydrogen. How did someone come to realize hydrogen fusion. And, btw, it would be interesting to hear the prior history, how chemistry - burning - was discounted as a source, and how gravitational collapse was suggested. Is there any where in Wikipedia where this history is discussed? TomS TDotO ( talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps this article is not the best place to discuss the history of "what makes the sun and stars shine". But somewhere there should be an article where it pointed out that somebody first said. "Hydrogen fusion is producing energy." I didn't get the impression that it was Bethe, from his article. Perhaps George Gamow? TomS TDotO ( talk) 05:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
In this article (
Main sequence),
Stellar evolution,
Pre-main-sequence star, and
O-type main-sequence star, "main sequence" is inconsistently hyphenated; more instances than just these likely exist.
Category:Main-sequence stars,
Category:Pre-main-sequence stars, and
Category:O-type main-sequence stars are hyphenated. Should "main sequence" be consistently hyphenated, or consistently un‑hyphenated? —
CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (
talk)
17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
— Relisted. —
CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (
talk)
10:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The standalone "main sequence" and the compound "main-sequence star" should be hyphenated differently;
Temporary adjectival compounds may also be formed by using a compound noun. If the compound noun is an open compound, it is usually hyphenated so that the relationship of the words to form an adjective is immediately apparent to the reader ("a tax-law case," "a minor-league pitcher," "problem-solving abilities"). If readily recognizable, the units may occur without a hyphen ("a high school diploma" or "a high-school diploma"; "an income tax refund" or "an income-tax refund"). Also, if the words that make up a compound adjective follow the noun they modify, they fall in normal word order and are, therefore, no longer considered unit modifiers that require hyphenation ("The decisions were made on the spur of the moment"; "They were ill prepared for the journey"; "The comments were made off the record"; "I prefer the paint that is blue gray").Source: [1]
pre-
while other articles use an
en dash to specify how it is joined with the following word or words (see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 221#Post–World War II or Post-World War II?).
Szmenderowiecki has made a useful point. I also concur with
Lithopsian; while trying to read the article, I kept reading over hyphenated and un-hyphenated versions of the same compound, and found it distracting. Whichever way is correct would be the way to go, I just want it to appear consistently. —
CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (
talk)
21:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)the article says a star remains at the same position on the sequence until hydrogen is depleted, but doesn't clearly say wherher it then moves off the MS, or up the MS. It also says that it gradually increases in temperature and brightness, implying it moves up not off the sequence. 47.17.56.98 ( talk) 20:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Can someone explain why 2MASS J0523-1403 is a spectral standard for L1-type main sequence stars? Cause it is actually an L2.5 star, as it says in the Wikipedia article about the star and in most sources. And it has a mass of 0.06 solar masses, not 0.07. The temperature is 2074 K, not 2200 K. It's the same for many of the other "spectral standards" in the table, for example, the B0 star has a too-low mass and a too-high luminosity, the B5 star is practically a subgiant, and the F0 star has a too-low mass and too-low temperature! All of the stars in EZ Aquarii are more M7 than M5! Please fix the table! Jtadesse ( talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Main sequence is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 31, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Could someone explain the reason why stars on this sequence are called "dwarf stars"? The article doesn't explain the origin of the term at all. -- LostLeviathan 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
These stars are hot, dim, and tiny compared to the Sun. They are actually remnants of stars. They are called dwarfs simply because they are very small. There is no real "origin" of the term.
Actually now that I reread the paragraph, it is totally wrong. Type-M Red dwarfs are main sequence stars but so are Type-O blue supergiants.
Roadrunner (
talk)
05:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if there was some historical/jargon reason to call all main sequence stars "dwarfs", for a general audience it seems ridiculously misleading to call them that. To people who have a little bit of astronomy knowledge, "dwarf" calls to mind the white, black, brown, and red dwarf stars, and to people who have no astronomy knowledge it brings to mind the word "small". Show any layperson the size comparison picture of Rigel B versus the Sun and tell them it's a dwarf, and see what they say. "Main sequence star" is less ambiguous without being any less precise. -- 142.25.102.130 ( talk) 00:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The chart here does not have the same values as the chart here. Both are part of Wikipedia. Can somebody fix this? JW Bjerk ( talk) 02:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anybody watching this has an account on the Simple English Wikipedia, but the description there seems a little messed up. In particular, the CNO cycle occurs with higher mass stars, rather than lower mass stars. There are a few other minor inconsistencies as well. Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 20:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a few contradictions in the opening section. Convection as well, first it says that large stars have convection, with smaller having less convection. Then it says smaller are increasing convection. I don't know enough about this to tell which is wrong, but these closing paragraphs aren't right. Saw a similar contradiction on another star section about white dwarfs. Might want to check if someone has been swapping sentences for their opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.231.254 ( talk) 17:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
What other types of stars are there other than main-sequence? What type is our sun? I think these points should be address in the introductory part of the article. 188.169.229.30 ( talk) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Main sequence. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Referring to white dwarfs, the article states: "These represent the final evolutionary stage of many main-sequence stars." It would more clearly represent the source if it stated: "These are an evolutionary stage many stars reach long after leaving the main-sequence." - Fartherred ( talk) 16:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The equation for main-sequence lifespan does not give results that match the numbers I'm seeing in other sources, such as http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/astrophysics/stellarevolution_mainsequence.html. Does that equation only apply to a specific range of stellar masses, or are the above website and/or the book that supplied that equation out of date? Or am I just not understanding the math? I can say that the equation does not match the results of this study for stars <0.25 solar masses: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/304125/pdf;jsessionid=EA018F69CE41C137D0722C4B2B961C88.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org 2601:441:4180:2440:3D40:64B1:E56A:1F9 ( talk) 19:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Main sequence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Would someone look at the "Further reading" section? 23 entries are not considered a reasonable number and the section is subject to various "External links" guidelines. Otr500 ( talk) 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, I've known one of the stars in the Beta Centauri system to be a "blue dwarf" - when I mean "dwarf", I mean main sequence star.
But why are O and B (early)-type main sequence stars never referred to as "blue dwarfs"? They are not as luminous as even their giant and supergiant counterparts, and not all of the "blue dwarfs" expected to form when red dwarfs exhaust their hydrogen supply are expected to be blue, but rather have temperatures just as hot as the Sun (just like the blue loop). The subdwarf O stars and subdwarf B stars are already almost as large as the Sun, but not even as luminous.
105.98.210.26 ( talk) 23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I was looking for the history of the idea that nuclear fusion was the source of stellar energy. As I understand it, Payne-Gaposchkin first showed that stars are mainly hydrogen and helium. But I don't know who and when suggested that hydrogen fusion would account for stellar energy. Before P-G, stellar energy was a mystery. But I cannot find any discussion in Wikipedia for this major discovery, building on P-G's surprising result about hydrogen. How did someone come to realize hydrogen fusion. And, btw, it would be interesting to hear the prior history, how chemistry - burning - was discounted as a source, and how gravitational collapse was suggested. Is there any where in Wikipedia where this history is discussed? TomS TDotO ( talk) 23:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps this article is not the best place to discuss the history of "what makes the sun and stars shine". But somewhere there should be an article where it pointed out that somebody first said. "Hydrogen fusion is producing energy." I didn't get the impression that it was Bethe, from his article. Perhaps George Gamow? TomS TDotO ( talk) 05:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
In this article (
Main sequence),
Stellar evolution,
Pre-main-sequence star, and
O-type main-sequence star, "main sequence" is inconsistently hyphenated; more instances than just these likely exist.
Category:Main-sequence stars,
Category:Pre-main-sequence stars, and
Category:O-type main-sequence stars are hyphenated. Should "main sequence" be consistently hyphenated, or consistently un‑hyphenated? —
CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (
talk)
17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
— Relisted. —
CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (
talk)
10:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The standalone "main sequence" and the compound "main-sequence star" should be hyphenated differently;
Temporary adjectival compounds may also be formed by using a compound noun. If the compound noun is an open compound, it is usually hyphenated so that the relationship of the words to form an adjective is immediately apparent to the reader ("a tax-law case," "a minor-league pitcher," "problem-solving abilities"). If readily recognizable, the units may occur without a hyphen ("a high school diploma" or "a high-school diploma"; "an income tax refund" or "an income-tax refund"). Also, if the words that make up a compound adjective follow the noun they modify, they fall in normal word order and are, therefore, no longer considered unit modifiers that require hyphenation ("The decisions were made on the spur of the moment"; "They were ill prepared for the journey"; "The comments were made off the record"; "I prefer the paint that is blue gray").Source: [1]
pre-
while other articles use an
en dash to specify how it is joined with the following word or words (see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 221#Post–World War II or Post-World War II?).
Szmenderowiecki has made a useful point. I also concur with
Lithopsian; while trying to read the article, I kept reading over hyphenated and un-hyphenated versions of the same compound, and found it distracting. Whichever way is correct would be the way to go, I just want it to appear consistently. —
CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (
talk)
21:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)the article says a star remains at the same position on the sequence until hydrogen is depleted, but doesn't clearly say wherher it then moves off the MS, or up the MS. It also says that it gradually increases in temperature and brightness, implying it moves up not off the sequence. 47.17.56.98 ( talk) 20:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Can someone explain why 2MASS J0523-1403 is a spectral standard for L1-type main sequence stars? Cause it is actually an L2.5 star, as it says in the Wikipedia article about the star and in most sources. And it has a mass of 0.06 solar masses, not 0.07. The temperature is 2074 K, not 2200 K. It's the same for many of the other "spectral standards" in the table, for example, the B0 star has a too-low mass and a too-high luminosity, the B5 star is practically a subgiant, and the F0 star has a too-low mass and too-low temperature! All of the stars in EZ Aquarii are more M7 than M5! Please fix the table! Jtadesse ( talk) 17:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)