Guess there's a reason why I wrote "for main-sequence stars". White dwarfs (below) are stellar remnants, giants (above) are evolved, soon-to-be stellar remnants, and both fit in my "exceptions" clause. So no real disagreement here.Geoff the Medio wrote:Considering the entire Hertzsprung–Russell diagram shows less clear correlation, however...Jaumito wrote:Of course there are exceptions to this rule (e.g., evolved stars like super/hypergiants or stellar remnants), but for main-sequence stars at least (i.e., the "normal" ones), there's a pretty direct relation between mass and "color", as seen in the chart below.
Besides, the HR diagram plots surface temperature against luminosity with no mention of stellar mass, so one might conclude that it's not really relevant to the point at hand. That would be wrong: as I alluded to earlier, there's indeed a relation between mass and luminosity, ...BUT it includes a variable exponent and an empirically determined factor, which may make deducing the mass of a non-main-sequence star from the HR diagram only (especially in the upper-right corner, due to the rarity of samples in that area) a bit tricky...