Fw: Population I Vs. Population II Stars at Tom's request

[Sheron Snyder <snyders@VOYAGER.NET>]

This one's from Tom.

Sheron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas McCarthy" <tmccarthy@sps.edu>
To: <snyders@voyager.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:29 PM
Subject: Population I Vs. Population II Stars


> For some reason, whenever I write to the physlist, they can't read my
text.  It somehow gets scrabbled.  I have looked everywhere on my software
to change whatever can be changed but I am not finding it!!
> Could you please post this message for me?  thank you kindly.
> Tom McCarthy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas McCarthy
> Sent: Thu 3/28/2002 10:16 PM
> To: phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators;
PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Cc:
> Subject: Population I Vs. Population II Stars
>
>
>
> I have a question that has bugged me for a long time.  The globular
clusters have the oldest stars and are, yet, metal-poor.  The disc contains
the youngest stars and are metal-rich.  How can the oldest stars, which have
had a much longer time to go super-nova and mix their interiors with the
medium in which they are immersed, be less metallic?  And, it is observed
that these older systems lack any considerable dust lanes or free gas,
implying few, if any, supernovae.  I know this implies that nearly all of
the stars are members of the F class or cooler, since not only are they
remaining intact but are not revealing their metallic interiors (no mixing
going on).  But, it the disc was origininally made out of the exact same
material (H, He) as the globular cluster, why would the dynamics of the disc
instigate the formation of numerous O, B, A type stars, while the galactic
bulge and the globular clusters inhibit these stars being formed?
>