- Sep 14, 2002
- 2,470
- 1
- 81
I was watching yet another science channel show on star formation during my down time (yes I literally just watch science channel during off peak hours), it got me thinking about the theory on star formation. Here's my confusion:
1) Nebula are supposedly star "nurseries"
2) Nebula are the remnants of a previous supernova
3) A supernova occurs because the previous star did not have any remaining hydrogen for fusion and it eventually fuses heavier and heavier elements till it hits iron and then loses its ability to carry out fusion
So my question is this: If a nebula is the remnants (or at least outer layers) of a star that didn't have any remaining hydrogen, what is the source of hydrogen for new stars in a nebula? Shouldn't all of the remaining elements be heavier elements and thus be unable to start fusion? Does a star going nova still have a source of hydrogen somewhere or is more hydrogen created during the supernova process?
I'm sure this is a basic high school question, but I think it's worth asking. Google doesn't quite give me the answer i'm looking for.
1) Nebula are supposedly star "nurseries"
2) Nebula are the remnants of a previous supernova
3) A supernova occurs because the previous star did not have any remaining hydrogen for fusion and it eventually fuses heavier and heavier elements till it hits iron and then loses its ability to carry out fusion
So my question is this: If a nebula is the remnants (or at least outer layers) of a star that didn't have any remaining hydrogen, what is the source of hydrogen for new stars in a nebula? Shouldn't all of the remaining elements be heavier elements and thus be unable to start fusion? Does a star going nova still have a source of hydrogen somewhere or is more hydrogen created during the supernova process?
I'm sure this is a basic high school question, but I think it's worth asking. Google doesn't quite give me the answer i'm looking for.
