[extropy-chat] Most star systems are single

[Robert Bradbury]

What I don't understand is if there are so many M class stars, why doesn't
the IMF trend continue?  I.e. there should be even more brown dwarfs,
methane dwarfs and superplanets (all "non-orbiting" / "rogue") running
around the galaxy?

One can understand why there aren't lots of O or B class stars because they
burn out so quickly but it would seem that astronomers are ignoring the time
dimension and are confining galaxies to a similar evolutionary state
(presumably based on assumptions of the "age" of the universe and rates of
stellar evolution).  But if some galaxies evolved much faster than ours then
presumably there should be few visible stars and mostly black holes, white
dwarfs, M stars, brown dwarfs, methane dwarfs & superplanets remaining (i.e.
"dark galaxies").  But I would tend to lean in the direction that current
perspectives of our galaxy regarding abundances of sub-stellar mass objects
are resting on rather thin ice.  (The required amount of IR & occultation
astronomy needed for robust abundance numbers has probably not been done).

So I don't need a nearby M star to colonize and turn into the billion-RB
simulation (and self-abuse) system [1].  I can settle for a relatively metal
rich L or T dwarf "star" -- and there may be many more of them...

R.

1. For the people not understanding this you have to read the recent thread
started by Jeffrey & Lee.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060524/96fda8e4/attachment.html>