<p>In Stephen Hawking's <em>A Brief History Of Time</em>, the book mentions that &quot;in regions that were slightly denser than average...galaxies were born.&quot; (pg 123). However, according to many other sources, the hypothesized Population III stars lived and died first, giving birth to black holes that would cause the formation of galaxies. So I am wondering, which statement is correct?</p>
<p><strong>Edit:</strong> Maybe a duplicate of <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/17817/which-came-first-galaxies-stars-planets">this post?</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-16T15:56:33.503Z
Does this answer your question? [Which came first: Galaxies <=> Stars <=> Planets?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/17817/which-came-first-galaxies-stars-planets)   (If so, just accept the duplicate; if not, clarify how - I agree with your edit that it probably is a duplicate, unless you don't agree with that post.)
Joe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-16T15:57:22.783Z
@Joe I probably just set that up for a closure xD   But I'm not sure, just need some more clarification on why Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest astrophysicists of all time, thinks otherwise.
WarpPrime
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-16T16:12:48.557Z
I think you're perhaps overinterpreting Hawking, in that "galaxies were born" could mean "galaxies were born via the formation of stars". (Also, Hawking was less of an astrophysicist -- and wasn't a specialist in galaxy or star formation -- than he was a physicist, so I wouldn't worry too much if he got a few details slightly wrong in a popular-science book.)
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-16T16:23:17.723Z
I don't see how the two statements are mutually exclusive.  Is Stephen Hawking really excluding the possibility of single stars prior to the first galaxies?
Connor Garcia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-16T17:35:06.170Z
@PeterErwin If you'd like the entire paragraph quoted, I can do that.
WarpPrime
<star><black-hole><galaxy><supermassive-black-hole><early-universe>
What came first: Galaxies or Stars?
WarpPrime
# What came first: Galaxies or Stars?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-12-16)

In Stephen Hawking's *A Brief History Of Time*, the book mentions that "in regions that were slightly denser than average...galaxies were born." (pg 123). However, according to many other sources, the hypothesized Population III stars lived and died first, giving birth to black holes that would cause the formation of galaxies. So I am wondering, which statement is correct?

**Edit:** Maybe a duplicate of [this post?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/17817/which-came-first-galaxies-stars-planets)

**Tags:** star, black-hole, galaxy, supermassive-black-hole, early-universe
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Does this answer your question? [Which came first: Galaxies <=> Stars <=> Planets?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/17817/which-came-first-galaxies-stars-planets)   (If so, just accept the duplicate; if not, clarify how - I agree with your edit that it probably is a duplicate, unless you don't agree with that post.)  
> **username_0**: @Joe I probably just set that up for a closure xD   But I'm not sure, just need some more clarification on why Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest astrophysicists of all time, thinks otherwise.  
> **username_2**: I think you're perhaps overinterpreting Hawking, in that "galaxies were born" could mean "galaxies were born via the formation of stars". (Also, Hawking was less of an astrophysicist -- and wasn't a specialist in galaxy or star formation -- than he was a physicist, so I wouldn't worry too much if he got a few details slightly wrong in a popular-science book.)  
> **username_3**: I don't see how the two statements are mutually exclusive.  Is Stephen Hawking really excluding the possibility of single stars prior to the first galaxies?  
> **username_0**: @PeterErwin If you'd like the entire paragraph quoted, I can do that.  

---

## 0 answers

