Is there a limit to how big a star can be? Is there a limit to

>>8636682
Is there a limit to how big your mom can be?

>>8636682
There is likely one star that is biggest, but there is no reason to think a star (lit or dark) need be limited by size/mass. The theoretical original singularity was an infinitely compact sun, so it was likely the biggest, and still is.

>>8636682
>Is there a limit to how big a star can be?

Yes, between 150 and 200 times the size of our sun.
>Is there a limit to how big a black hole can be?

No.

>>8636728
How come it can't be bigger?

>>8636740
because 1+2+3+4.......= -1/12

>>8636682
Black holes have no upper limit on mass other than the mass of the entire universe of course.

Regarding black holes, the supermassive ones were already supermassive before there were any stars, so how'd they get there first?

Read up on Pop III stars, they're the theoretical first stars. I went to a lecture at my university about them, and it was pretty fascinating. They basically used up all their energy in a matter of seconds to minutes.

>>8636943
Pop iii stars were around 500 my after the Big Bang. They would have had to have formed in virtually pure hydrogen/dark matter galaxies swirling around supermassive black holes that were already there.

A star "burns" or fuses small nuclei into large ones. This produces energy (radiation) that excites the matter of the star hindering it from collapsing onto itself.
Q 1: At what point does the mass of the star overpower the produced energy?
Q 2: Is the minimal mass of a black hole comprised of large atoms smaller than that of one comprised of small atoms?

>>8637079
Q1: About 150 solar masses, though there's evidence for larger stars. Maybe they spin real fast. Anyway stars over 150 solar masses tend to blow away any more hydrogen trying to accumulate on the surface while almost immediately forming a degenerate iron core that would burn through the lighter elements in less than a hundred thousand years.

QE2: A stellar black hole will almost certainly start off as degenerate iron collapsing into a neutron star first. That's around 3 solar masses at least, but you probably need 5 or more to go full singularity. If you just arbitrarily slam hydrogen atoms together you're still going to go through the heavier elements including iron before you get to the neutron precursor so this question really makes no sense. Ultimately there is no minimum mass for a black hole since you can have subatomic ones weighing no more than a fart.

>>8636931
Either shockwaves from the big bang compressed the early energy into massive black holes or massive amounts of energy clumped into black holes before stars were formed.

>>8636728
This

>>8636740
Because it will collapse under its own weight and become a black hole in time. A very young star can be absolutely massive. But in time heavy elements will form in its core and a big kaboom is imminent

>>8636751
stop this terrible meme

>>8637103
>degenerate iron core that would burn through the lighter elements

Why would that happen? How does the core affect the layers above it?

>>8636931
Because black holes absorb each other to accumulate I'm size. That's why you have stellar black holes and super massive ones in galaxies.

>>8637589
Imagine heavy iron boulders in a balloon filled with gas. The sun burns the lighter gas then when it's left with the heavier stuff it can't produce atomic pressure needed to sustain it's size. So when that happens the sun implodes and the core will turn into a neutron star and if it's mass is too big it'll turn into a black hole.