Concept

Initial mass function — where it appears

The distribution of masses with which a population of stars is born, a power law steep enough that number and light are dominated by opposite ends. Its integrands for number, mass and light peak decades apart, so most stars are small, most mass is in small stars, and most light comes from a handful of large ones.

Named by 12 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

How long a star lasts, against its mass. Main-sequence lifetime against mass, on logarithmic axes. Fuel grows in proportion to mass and consumption grows as its three-and-a-half power, so the lifetime falls steeply — a star of thirty solar masses lives for a few million years.

Why the biggest stars die first, and take the galaxy with them

A star thirty times the Sun's mass has thirty times the fuel and burns it forty thousand times faster. It lasts a few million years, and everything heavier than iron exists because of it.

stars · Stellar lifetimes
The Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. Luminosity against surface temperature, both in solar units and on logarithmic axes, with temperature increasing to the left. The main sequence is computed from the mass–luminosity and mass–radius relations; the dashed diagonals are lines of constant radius.

The main sequence is a place stars sit, not a track they travel

The commonest misreading of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram is that stars slide down the band as they age. They do not. They sit at one point for ninety percent of their lives and then leave sideways.

stars · The HR diagram
One population, three integrals, two ends. The same mass function weighted three ways, each normalised so that the area under it is one, against mass on a logarithmic axis — so a share of the page is a share of the total. The light is a zero-age population's, every star still on the main sequence, which is the only age at which the top of the range is present at all. The steep curve on the left is the number of stars, which peaks at 0.08 M☉ and falls away because the function is steeper than m⁻¹; the middle one is the mass they carry; the one on the right is the light they emit, computed from this file's own main-sequence relation and peaking at 55.0 M☉ — 682 times further up the axis. The population that is counted and the population that is seen are two different populations. Above 8 M☉ there are 0.63% of the stars, 21% of the mass and 99% of the light. The slopes are α = 1.3 above 0.08 M☉, α = 2.3 above 0.5 M☉, and the low-mass end is where the honesty runs out: it has never been measured in another galaxy, and every mass inferred from a luminosity assumes it.

Most stars are small, and most of the light is not

The mass function is steep and the mass–luminosity relation is steeper, so counting stars and measuring their output are integrals of the same function dominated by opposite ends of it. Every mass inferred from a brightness passes through that mismatch.

stars · Initial mass function
The mass-to-light ratio of NGC 3198, radius by radius. The dynamical mass inside each radius divided by the light inside it, in solar units. Inside two disc scale lengths it is nearly flat at about 2.2 — a galaxy made of stars, weighing what stars weigh. Outside the disc the light stops and the mass does not, so the ratio climbs to 10 by 30 kpc with no sign of turning over. The curve is not fitted: it is the rotation curve's enclosed mass divided by the light profile's enclosed light, both drawn elsewhere in this collection.

The mass that is not the light

A galaxy's mass-to-light ratio is not a number, it is a curve, and it rises without turning over. What stellar populations can plausibly weigh sets a ceiling; the dynamics sit far above it, and the gap is a shape rather than a discrepancy.

galaxies · Dark matter
Three mass models, 2.3× apart in the disc, agreeing to 3.1 km/s everywhere. NGC 3198's rotation curve, decomposed three ways. The stellar disc has been scaled by 0.2, 0.65, 1.1 times its photometric mass, and for each scaling the halo's asymptotic speed and core radius have been fitted — not chosen — to reproduce the same total. The heavy curve and the marked points are that total: the three models agree with it to 3.08 km/s at every radius, well inside a measurement error of 4.5. The light curves below are the disc's own contribution, and at 17 kpc they differ by a factor of 2.3 — from 36 to 85 km/s — with the halo taking up exactly the slack, 126 down to 97. The curve is one function and the decomposition asks for two. The free parameter is the mass-to-light ratio of the stars, which the kinematics never measures, and it is why a "maximum disc" fit and a halo-dominated fit are both published for the same galaxy. The degeneracy does have one hard edge: scaling the disc to 1.35 times its photometric mass cannot be fitted by any halo in the family — the best leaves 5.6 km/s rms — because past the maximum-disc solution the stars alone already overshoot the curve and a halo cannot have negative mass. That is the one thing a rotation curve says about M/L on its own, and it is an upper limit. What separates the rest has to come from somewhere else: the vertical velocity dispersion of the disc, which weighs the stars alone; gas-rich dwarfs where there is scarcely a disc to argue about; or the baryonic Tully–Fisher relation, which ties the halo's speed to the baryons and would be a coincidence if the two were independent.

The same curve, two galaxies

A rotation curve is one function of radius. Decomposing it asks for two — how much of the speed is the stars and how much is the halo — and the mass-to-light ratio that trades one against the other is not measured by anything in the kinematics. A maximum disc and a halo-dominated fit run through identical points.

galaxies · Rotation curves
The star-formation law, and the clock inside it. 46 model discs on the Kennicutt–Schmidt plane, built from Σ_SFR = 2.5e-4 Σ_gas^1.4 with 0.28 dex of scatter, with the exponent then fitted back off the drawn points at 1.42. The diagonal dashed lines are constant depletion times: gas divided by the rate consuming it. Every disc on this plane consumes its gas within a few gigayears, and a galaxy that has been forming stars for ten of them therefore cannot have been working from the gas it started with. The slope steeper than one is what makes the depletion time shorter where the gas is richer, which is the opposite of the intuition that a full tank lasts longer.

The gas runs out before the galaxy does

Divide a disc's gas by the rate it is turning that gas into stars and the answer is about two billion years — a seventh of the age of the disc. Every spiral still forming stars is therefore being fed from outside, and the star-formation law says the richer the disc, the sooner it starves.

galaxies · Star formation
The critical mass falls as the cloud contracts, with a slope of −0.50. The Jeans mass — the least mass of molecular gas that its own pressure cannot support — against number density, for gas at 10, 20, 50 K, both axes logarithmic. The curves are straight because the mass goes as T^(3/2) ρ^(−1/2), and the slope measured off the drawn 10 K curve is −0.500 against the −0.5 that exponent requires. The consequence is the one that matters and it is a matter of sign: a cloud collapsing at constant temperature moves to the right along one of these lines, so the mass it takes to be unstable keeps falling, and sub-regions that were individually stable when the collapse began become individually unstable during it. A giant molecular cloud at 100 particles per cubic centimetre has a Jeans mass of 99 solar masses; a dense core at 10⁵ has one of 1.70. That is why a cloud of ten thousand solar masses makes a cluster rather than a star, and why the question about star formation is not what makes gas collapse but what stops the fragmenting.

The cloud that cannot hold itself up

A cold cloud collapses when gravity beats pressure, and the mass at which that happens falls as the square root of the density — so the collapse makes the condition for collapse easier, over and over, until the gas can no longer get rid of the heat. That is why a cloud of ten thousand solar masses makes a cluster and not a star.

galaxies · Molecular clouds
One star in 380 makes essentially all the ionising light. Three cumulative fractions against stellar mass, for a broken power-law initial mass function with slopes 1.3 and 2.3 breaking at 0.5 solar masses. Each curve says what share of one quantity is produced by stars heavier than the mass on the axis, and the three do not resemble one another. Only 0.41 per cent of the hydrogen-ionising photons come from stars below 15 solar masses, because the ionising output of a star climbs by five orders of magnitude between eight and twenty. One star in 380 is above that mass, and between them those stars hold 14 per cent of the mass. Those two numbers are the leverage in every star-formation rate quoted from an Hα line. What is measured is the light of a handful of very massive stars; what is reported is the mass of a whole population; and the number in between is an integral over a part of the mass function that no extragalactic observation reaches. The medians are marked but should be read with care, and the reason is visible in the curves: the mass-weighted median at 1.27 solar masses is a property of the population, while the light-weighted one at 58 is a property of where the plot stops — halving the upper mass limit moves it to 36. An integrand that rises with mass has its median wherever the axis ends.

A birth rate measured from light nothing young emitted

A star-formation rate is quoted in solar masses per year, and nothing in the measurement counts a star or weighs anything. What is measured is a luminosity produced by about one star in four hundred, and the conversion to a mass is an integral over a part of the mass function that no extragalactic observation reaches.

galaxies · Star formation
Mestel cooling for white dwarfs of 0.4 to 1 solar masses. Luminosity against age for white dwarfs of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1 solar masses, both axes logarithmic. Each line is the whole of the star's later life: there is no nuclear source, so what is radiated is the thermal energy the ions had when the star was made, leaking out through a thin envelope whose opacity is Kramers'. That one sentence gives L ∝ t^(−7/5), and the lines are straight here because a power law is straight on these axes — the slope is the exponent and can be measured off the picture. Two features are worth more than the numbers. The first is how flat the sequence becomes: a factor of ten in luminosity costs a factor of 5.2 in age, so a white dwarf spends most of its existence faint, and any population of them piles up at the bottom. The second is that the heavier tracks lie above the lighter ones. A heavier white dwarf is smaller, so it has more ions to cool and less surface to lose them through, and at a given age it is the brighter object. The picture does not show what happens at the faint end, where the ions crystallise and the heat capacity stops being constant; that is a separate figure, and it is where this law stops being enough.

A clock with no fuel in it

A white dwarf has nothing left to burn, so its brightness is a record of how long it has been cooling. The faintest ones in the Galaxy are not faint because they are small — they are as faint as anything has had time to become, and the place where they stop is a date.

stars · White dwarf cooling
A high end that is 2.5 in slope steeper than the one stars were born with. The mass function a star count measures against the one stars were born with, for a population that has been forming stars steadily for 10 billion years. Below about a solar mass nothing has had time to die, so the two coincide exactly. Above it the fraction still alive is the main-sequence lifetime divided by the age, and since the lifetime falls as the two-and-a-half power of the mass, the present-day function is steeper than the initial one by exactly that exponent. A count of massive stars in an old population therefore under-represents them by orders of magnitude, and reading it as an initial mass function gives a slope far too steep. The correction is large, it is calculable, and it depends on the star-formation history — which is usually the thing the mass function was going to be used to constrain.

A mass function corrected by an age

Counting stars by mass gives the stars that are alive. What every argument needs is the stars that were born, and the two differ by the fraction of each mass still on the main sequence — which is a lifetime divided by an age, and which for massive stars in an old population is a very small number.

stars · Initial mass function
A bound on the baryon density from an abundance nobody can extrapolate. Primordial deuterium against the baryon density, with the upper bounds that the solar system's own deuterium and helium-3 place on it. The inequality is D_p ≤ D_obs + ³He_obs/g₃, and it holds for any star-formation history whatever: a deuteron entering a star becomes ³He, so the pair can only be moved from one member to the other and then destroyed, never increased. With pre-solar values of D/H = 2.0e-5 and ³He/H = 1.5e-5, the bounds are 3.50e-5 at g₃ = 1, 5.00e-5 at g₃ = 0.5, 8.00e-5 at g₃ = 0.25 — and because deuterium falls with density, each upper bound on the abundance is a lower bound on η: η₁₀ > 4.98, η₁₀ > 3.99, η₁₀ > 2.97. The weakest of them, at a survival fraction of 0.25, still excludes 52 per cent of the density range below the answer. That was the state of the measurement for most of the 1980s, and the shape of it is the thing worth carrying: an abundance too poorly understood to be extrapolated at all still constrained the quantity, because its direction of change under processing was known even though its magnitude was not. The microwave background's 6.13 sits above every bound drawn, which is not a coincidence and is not evidence — a bound that excluded the answer would have been an error, and a bound that admits it is only a bound.

An abundance with no direction to correct in

Every primordial abundance is measured today and extrapolated backwards, and the extrapolation works because processing moves each species one way. Helium-3 is made by small stars and destroyed by large ones, so the sign of its correction is not merely uncertain — it is unknown.

cosmology · Nucleosynthesis
The count theory predicts, and the inference it costs. The galaxy stellar mass function: galaxies per cubic megaparsec per dex of stellar mass, both axes logarithmic. Two Schechter components share a characteristic mass of 10^10.66 M☉ — one of slope -0.35 carrying the quenched galaxies at the knee, one of slope -1.47 carrying the star-forming ones below it — and the dashed line is the single component a luminosity function is usually fitted with. Integrated over the range drawn it gives 0.0487 galaxies per cubic megaparsec holding 2.22·10⁸ solar masses of stars, of which 51 per cent sits above the knee. This function is not measured. What is measured is a luminosity function; turning one into the other needs a mass-to-light ratio for every galaxy in the sample, and that ratio is not a constant — it runs by a factor of about five from the bluest galaxies to the reddest, so the conversion moves the red end of the distribution further than the blue end and changes the SHAPE rather than the units. A stellar mass function is a luminosity function plus a stellar population model, and the second half is where its disagreements live.

The count theory predicts, and the inference it costs

A luminosity function is measured. A stellar mass function is inferred, one galaxy at a time, through a ratio that runs by a factor of six from the bluest galaxies to the reddest — so the conversion changes the shape and not merely the units.

galaxies · Luminosity function

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Mass-to-light ratioStellar populationStar formation rateCluster turnoffCompletenessFree-fall timeThe Kennicutt–Schmidt lawMain sequenceMain sequence lifetimeMolecular cloudQuenchingStellar population synthesis

All concepts