The reason for high-mass stars not harboring intelligent life.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 18, Problem 3ETY

To determine

The reason for high-mass stars not harboring intelligent life.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

In a globular cluster, astronomers (someday) discover a star with the same mass as our Sun, but consisting entirely of hydrogen and helium. Is this star a good place to point our SETI antennas and search for radio signals from an advanced civilization? Group of answer choices No, because such a star (and any planets around it) would not have the heavier elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) that we believe are necessary to start life as we know it. Yes, because globular clusters are among the closest star clusters to us, so that they would be easy to search for radio signals. Yes, because we have already found radio signals from another civilization living near a star in a globular cluster. No, because such a star would most likely not have a stable (main-sequence) stage that is long enough for a technological civilization to develop. Yes, because such a star is probably old and a technological civilization will have had a long time to evolve and develop there.

Most of the stars we can see with the unaided eye in our night sky are hundreds or even thousands of lightyears away from Earth. (The very closest ones are only a few dozen lightyears away, but most are much further.) The vast majority of stars in our galaxy are many tens of thousands of lightyears away. IF intelligent life existed on planets orbiting some of these stars – and that’s a huge IF! – comment on the likelihood and practicality of (a) visiting, (b) communicating with, or (c) verifying the existence of those life forms. Describe how you might go about approaching EACH of these three tasks, or if you think they are even possible. (One or two sentences for each part would be appropriate.)

Suppose that stars were born at random times over the last 10e10 years. The rate ofstar formation is simply the number of stars divided by 10e10 years. The fraction ofstars with detected extrasolar planets is at least 9 %. The rate of star formation can bemultiplied by this fraction to find the rate planet formation. How often (in years) doesa planetary system form in our galaxy? Assume the Milky Way contains 7 × 10e11 stars. I've done this problem 3 different times from scratch and looked at similar problems here. Each time my answer is 1.587 (1.59 rounded to 2 significant figures), but when I submit, it says the answer is wrong. What do you think?