Population II/III[edit]

Untitled[edit]

Why couldn't the observed (trace amounts of) metals be Primordial ? Such would explain, how radiative cooling could have enabled the formation of small stars, so early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.65.75 (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A star with observed metal does not always belongs to population II class. Even a Population III class stars, with initial zero metals, could enhance its own surface metallicity by self-enhancementfrom its own nuclear reaction, by mass accredited from the binary companion or polluted by near-by supernovae. In fact, if this star is formed by binary interaction, it is likely that it is formed as a population III stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.160.7 (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low mass[edit]

According to the source at the bottom of the article (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/relic_star_021030.html) it is a low mass star.Jan Lapère 16:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a low mas star, but it is also very old. Therefore it has become a giant. Star doesn't have to be massive to become a giant, term 'giant' refers to an evolutionary phase of stars. Star becomes a giant when the hydrogen fusion ends in its core and it starts to swell.--Jyril 17:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With an age of around 13 billion years, this red giant star ought to have a mass of about 70% of the mass of our Sun.

All single stars with masses lower than these 70% of the Sun have a life time superior to the age of the Universe. --Siffler 17:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about that. But if it have a mass of <80% than Sun, shouldn't it be considerably older than Universe? Or ar the numbers from here obsolete? Said: Rursus ☻ 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Besides, stars being older than Universe is not a situation out of the ordinary, precisely – they've tended to be absurdely old for many decades by now – or the Universe absurdely young). Said: Rursus ☻ 16:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This age topic is discussed on Harris et al. (2007)].—RJH (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity[edit]

We do not have a clue the Luminosity of this Old Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.231.86 (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HE0107-5240. 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]