IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Sol Has A Binary Partner?
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post Sep 17 2005, 07:02 AM
Post #16





Guests






QUOTE (RedSky @ Sep 17 2005, 04:12 AM)
I've never yet heard of "dark matter" as a possibility.  I didn't think true DM could even make "big chunks" since it effectively doesn't interact via any force except gravity.  Without electromagnetism,  there are no atoms or chemical bonds, and no chunks.

-RedSky
*


We yet do not know what is dark matter. We even not know if it is large objetcs or subatomic particules. Some hints were found recently that there would be numerous MACHOS (massive planet-sized or star-sized objects) so that to explain a fair amount of dark matter. The most common size found was half the mass of the Sun, pointing at (likely) very ancient white dwarves, very weak and thus invisible, but very numerous, maybe the second generation of stars. If this is confirmed, we have an explanation of the dark matter which fits within the known frame of physics, astrophysics and cosmology.

But others explanations are not yet ruled out, the dark matter could be WIMPS, subatomic particles with no strong interaction and no electromagnetic interaction. The neutrino is the most familiar candidate, but it seems that they are not enough to account for the total dark mass.

Neutrino-like particules would be simply in orbit around the galaxy, in balistic ellipses, implying they have speeds in the 200km/s range. But some could have weaker speeds, and orbit around the solar system, or even form gravitationally linked clouds (although elsewhere in this thread any massive object of this kind near the Sun was ruled out by accurate measurements). Ordinary neutral atoms and dust can form gravitationally linked clouds as light as the Earth mass, so why not neutrinos?

Eventually WIMPS could have interactions of their own, an equivalent of electromagnetism, indetectable for us, but allowing them to form massive planet-like bodies, and emitting a photon-like radiation also indetectable for us. But this would ruin the standard model of physics and require larger models such as supersymmetry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jamescanvin
post Sep 19 2005, 12:48 AM
Post #17


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2262
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Melbourne - Oz
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Sep 17 2005, 05:02 PM)
We yet do not know what is dark matter. We even not know if it is large objetcs or subatomic particules. Some hints were found recently that there would be numerous MACHOS (massive planet-sized or star-sized objects) so that to explain a fair amount of dark matter. The most common size found was half the mass of the Sun, pointing at (likely) very ancient white dwarves, very weak and thus invisible, but very numerous, maybe the second generation of stars. If this is confirmed, we have an explanation of the dark matter which fits within the known frame of physics, astrophysics and cosmology.
*


If you beleve standard cosmology (even only a little!) then it is pretty clear that this cannot account for dark matter, which must be non-bayonic.

James.


--------------------
Twitter
Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Decepticon
post Oct 5 2005, 03:04 AM
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1276
Joined: 25-November 04
Member No.: 114



New article.... http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/int...on/binary.shtml
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljk4-1
post Mar 14 2006, 03:43 PM
Post #19


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2454
Joined: 8-July 05
From: NGC 5907
Member No.: 430



Astrophysics, abstract
astro-ph/0603219

From: Jorge Melendez [view email]

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 03:05:17 GMT (24kb)

HD 98618: A Star Closely Resembling our Sun

Authors: Jorge Melendez (1,2), Katie Dodds-Eden (1), Jose A. Robles (1) (1) RSAA/Mt Stromlo Observatory (Australia), (2) Caltech (USA), UNMSM (Peru)

Comments: ApJ letters, in press

Despite the observational effort carried out in the last few decades, no perfect solar twin has been found to date. An important milestone was achieved a decade ago by Porto de Mello & da Silva, who showed that 18 Sco is almost a solar twin. In the present work, we use extremely high resolution (R = 10^5) high S/N Keck HIRES spectra to carry out a differential analysis of sixteen solar twin candidates. We show that HD 98618 is the second closest solar twin, and that the fundamental parameters of both HD 98618 and 18 Sco are very similar (within a few percent) to the host star of our solar system, including the likelihood of hosting a terrestrial planet within their habitable zone. We suggest that these stars should be given top priority in exoplanet and SETI surveys.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603219


--------------------
"After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance.
I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard,
and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does
not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is
indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have
no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft."

- Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljk4-1
post Apr 25 2006, 06:11 PM
Post #20


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2454
Joined: 8-July 05
From: NGC 5907
Member No.: 430



Is Sedna giving us clues that Sol is not alone?


- Evidence Mounts For Companion Star To Our Sun

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Evidence...To_Our_Sun.html

Newport Beach CA (SPX) Apr 25, 2006 - The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has
found that orbital characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid,
"Sedna", demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star
system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally bound
orbiting a common center of mass.


--------------------
"After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance.
I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard,
and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does
not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is
indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have
no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft."

- Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blobrana
post Apr 25 2006, 07:50 PM
Post #21


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 8-August 05
Member No.: 457



QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ Apr 25 2006, 10:41 PM) *
"Sedna", demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star system.


Hum,
the orbit of Sedna surly points to the possibility that our sun is rather unique in being a solitary star...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ljk4-1
post Apr 25 2006, 09:26 PM
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2454
Joined: 8-July 05
From: NGC 5907
Member No.: 430



QUOTE (blobrana @ Apr 25 2006, 03:50 PM) *
Hum,
the orbit of Sedna surly points to the possibility that our sun is rather unique in being a solitary star...


How do you figure that?


--------------------
"After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance.
I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard,
and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does
not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is
indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have
no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft."

- Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ngunn
post Apr 26 2006, 03:34 PM
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3516
Joined: 4-November 05
From: North Wales
Member No.: 542



QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Sep 17 2005, 07:48 AM) *
This is funny it is the method we use to detect planets orbiting around far stars, and now this method is applied to our own star!!


I wrote a paper for the BAA Journal in, (correction) February 1974 called titled 'Is the Sun an Astrometric Binary' in which I suggested searching for a solar companion by looking for curvature in the proper motions of nearby stars resulting from acceleration around the barycentre. I was not aware of any follow-up then and it is only now from reading this thread that I discover that pulsar radial velocities have indeed provided useful constraints on the mass and distance of hypothetical companions. Great stuff - but there's still plenty of room out there for substantial (earth-sized, maybe) planets orbiting in the dark . . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Myran_*
post Apr 26 2006, 07:30 PM
Post #24





Guests






It have been suggested that the planetesimals, or building blocs, that crated the solar system were made up of many objects where some were sent into the Sun by near encounters with the larger planet building areas like proto-Jupiter. And some might have been sent out of the solar system altogether.

But isnt it likely that some only were sent into distant and elliptical orbits? And isnt that the kind of orbit we see for Sedna?
So I cant see why anyone would claim that the orbit would be any 'evidence' for anything ususual, but rather that it is one expected result of the original planet formation process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ngunn
post Apr 27 2006, 09:48 AM
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3516
Joined: 4-November 05
From: North Wales
Member No.: 542



QUOTE (Myran @ Apr 26 2006, 08:30 PM) *
But isnt it likely that some only were sent into distant and elliptical orbits? And isnt that the kind of orbit we see for Sedna?
So I cant see why anyone would claim that the orbit would be any 'evidence' for anything ususual, but rather that it is one expected result of the original planet formation process.


The problem is that Sedna's present perihelion is too great for it to be perturbed by the giant planets. If it was flung out something further out must have perturbed it again to stop it falling back in.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ngunn
post Apr 27 2006, 12:37 PM
Post #26


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3516
Joined: 4-November 05
From: North Wales
Member No.: 542



Attached File  NGarticleSMALL.doc ( 176K ) Number of downloads: 1016
Here is the article I mentioned a couple of posts ago:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Myran_*
post Apr 27 2006, 02:18 PM
Post #27





Guests






QUOTE
ngunn said: The problem is that Sedna's present perihelion is too great for it to be perturbed by the giant planets.


Im sorry if you misunderstood my post, my suggestion was that Senda had been ejected and given the orbit it have after one or several encounters with other objects during the planetary formation process.
Some are flung away, while those remains looses energy so they can collide less violently with other bodies and then cling together insetad of simply shatter - which would happen at greater speeds and more random orbits.
So the orbits of the giant planets today, and the overall ordered solar system have quite little to do with the violent past. I think Senda are one example of the former kind one that was ejected from the onner parts, and so remain as s remnant of the wild youth of the solar system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ngunn
post Apr 27 2006, 03:46 PM
Post #28


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3516
Joined: 4-November 05
From: North Wales
Member No.: 542



You mean there was at least one giant planet reaching 76AU in the early solar system?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Myran_*
post Apr 27 2006, 04:34 PM
Post #29





Guests






No I mean that Sedna have been closer to the sun earlier.

Theres additional hints that this might be the case.

The unusual red colour of Sedna came as a suprise, but on the other hand if it have spent quite some time nearer to the sun that fact is less strange - the sun could then have cooked a lot of chemicals on the surface, especially during the intense T-tauri phase.

Second, the fact that Sedna lacks a moon have been viewed as a disappointment to some astronomers.
Now if Sedna did go trough a close pass of a bigger body, then a moon are not likely to remain gravitionally bound.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MichaelT
post Apr 27 2006, 05:13 PM
Post #30


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 156
Joined: 18-March 05
From: Germany
Member No.: 211



QUOTE (Myran @ Apr 27 2006, 04:34 PM) *
No I mean that Sedna have been closer to the sun earlier.


Yes, but current models and simulations of planet formation and migration of the early solar system cannot explain the current orbit of Sedna. I recently read a number of current papers on that topic as preparation for a talk on TNOs. They all conclude that encounters with planets/planetesimals (gravity assists) are not able to get Sedna into an orbit with such a large perhelion. Simulations of close encounters with other stars (several hundred AU), on the other hand, resulted in some objects with Sedna-like orbits.

Though, none of the models of the early solar system is currently able to reproduce all aspects of the distribution of TNOs. So there might be processes that can place objects into Sedna-like orbits which are currently not known. I think one process which has not been included into these models is the drag excerted by the myridas of small particles and its consequences.

Michael
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 08:30 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.