<p>The star formation process from giant molecular cloud to unobscured protostar is thought to take about a million years.</p>

<p>So the answer is no.</p>

<p>Similarly, there are very few large scale physical processes that occur in the universe on a human timescale. Nevertheless we are sophisticated enough to understand that you do not necessarily have to see something happening to know that it has occurred and work out how it happened.</p>

<p>Or are you asking whether all the separate phases of the star formation process have been observed in different places? The answer to that is broadly yes. The rarest (shortest) phases is the initial collapse to a "core" that is embedded within an obscuring molecular cloud. Nevertheless, such objects can be seen at sub-mm and radio wavelengths.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:48:50.517Z
@R.J-A simple yes or no is what I needed, Your extreamly knowledgeable and credible so I will except your answer.
user5434678
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:58:41.013Z
Yes the core configuration and the process forming or leading up to that event is what drives my ambition.
user5434678
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:38:11.900Z
2016-05-17T18:38:11.900Z
ProfRob
<p>Has Science observed the entire process of a star being created when the area of creation was just a void in space? Or is there still missing data that has not been entirely observed and recorded?  </p>

<p>I am asking for a simple yes or no if science has fully observed pre birth/Void in space and the entire birth of a star filling the void and what star was created.
Please no theory's only scientific fact with a reference thank you.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:08:09.227Z
Stars don't emerge from voids, they emerge from interstellar clouds.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:16:48.847Z
@Called2voyage- Your source would  be of great credibility can you provide a link so I can fully understand the current data of a stars birth.
user5434678
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:18:07.033Z
Here's one reference: http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section2/new7.html. I hesitate to answer directly because you're looking for "hard" evidence instead of theory, and I'm not sure how strictly you intended to judge the answer.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:31:48.160Z
@Called2voyage- You are right about the interstellar clouds, but the Void was there first. What force does science theorize attracted these interstellar clouds?
user5434678
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:34:56.353Z
I would argue that mass-energy was there first, given what we know about the early stages of the Universe. But sure, there's a void and then matter moves into it. Interstellar clouds are attracted by gravity.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:44:22.167Z
@called2voyage- There has to be a focus point, and this point would be extremely focused that the forces of gravity would not come into play or be noticed until a large mass is formed. Gravity can not harness or contain its self to a focal point in open space.
user5434678
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-17T18:47:41.100Z
Your understanding of gravity is flawed. I suggest you read an introduction to astrophysics.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-20T01:46:24.597Z
I voted you down because you said "void in space" and "Simple yes or no is what I needed", taken together, I find that troubling cause the formation of stars is complicated and not completely understood but what certainly doesn't happen is a "void in space" becomes a star.  There are gas clouds, occasional rogue planets and solar winds out there in a kind of mailstorm, which over time can pull together by gravity and you have a star, not out of the void, but out of the stuff in the milky way.  Stuff interacts with other stuff and you get stars.  The void doesn't give birth to stars.
userLTK
<star-systems>
Has Science observed and recorded a stars birth?
user5434678
# Has Science observed and recorded a stars birth?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-17)

Has Science observed the entire process of a star being created when the area of creation was just a void in space? Or is there still missing data that has not been entirely observed and recorded?

I am asking for a simple yes or no if science has fully observed pre birth/Void in space and the entire birth of a star filling the void and what star was created.
Please no theory's only scientific fact with a reference thank you.

**Tags:** star-systems

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Stars don't emerge from voids, they emerge from interstellar clouds.  
> **username_0**: @Called2voyage- Your source would  be of great credibility can you provide a link so I can fully understand the current data of a stars birth.  
> **username_1**: Here's one reference: http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section2/new7.html. I hesitate to answer directly because you're looking for "hard" evidence instead of theory, and I'm not sure how strictly you intended to judge the answer.  
> **username_0**: @Called2voyage- You are right about the interstellar clouds, but the Void was there first. What force does science theorize attracted these interstellar clouds?  
> **username_1**: I would argue that mass-energy was there first, given what we know about the early stages of the Universe. But sure, there's a void and then matter moves into it. Interstellar clouds are attracted by gravity.  
> **username_0**: @username_1- There has to be a focus point, and this point would be extremely focused that the forces of gravity would not come into play or be noticed until a large mass is formed. Gravity can not harness or contain its self to a focal point in open space.  
> **username_1**: Your understanding of gravity is flawed. I suggest you read an introduction to astrophysics.  
> **username_2**: I voted you down because you said "void in space" and "Simple yes or no is what I needed", taken together, I find that troubling cause the formation of stars is complicated and not completely understood but what certainly doesn't happen is a "void in space" becomes a star.  There are gas clouds, occasional rogue planets and solar winds out there in a kind of mailstorm, which over time can pull together by gravity and you have a star, not out of the void, but out of the stuff in the milky way.  Stuff interacts with other stuff and you get stars.  The void doesn't give birth to stars.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-05-17. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

The star formation process from giant molecular cloud to unobscured protostar is thought to take about a million years.

So the answer is no.

Similarly, there are very few large scale physical processes that occur in the universe on a human timescale. Nevertheless we are sophisticated enough to understand that you do not necessarily have to see something happening to know that it has occurred and work out how it happened.

Or are you asking whether all the separate phases of the star formation process have been observed in different places? The answer to that is broadly yes. The rarest (shortest) phases is the initial collapse to a "core" that is embedded within an obscuring molecular cloud. Nevertheless, such objects can be seen at sub-mm and radio wavelengths.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @R.J-A simple yes or no is what I needed, Your extreamly knowledgeable and credible so I will except your answer.  
> **username_0**: Yes the core configuration and the process forming or leading up to that event is what drives my ambition.  

---

