Sol Has A Binary Partner? |
Sol Has A Binary Partner? |
Sep 14 2005, 01:20 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: 11-August 05 Member No.: 463 |
Sol has a binary partner???
That'd be fabulous, if so. And I'd want confirmation ASAP. Discusses precession of the equinox in relation to this theory. QUOTE While the findings in Lost Star are controversial, astronomers now agree that most stars are likely part of a binary or multiple star system. Dr. Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley and research physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is an early proponent of a companion star to our sun; he prefers a 26 million year orbit period. Hmmmmm. Sol is a variable star (little factoid dropped into this post). Haven't we all naturally considered Sol as sol-itary? Interesting to think it might actually be a double star. |
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 04:57 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
QUOTE (Palomar @ Sep 14 2005, 02:20 PM) Sol has a binary partner??? That'd be fabulous, if so. And I'd want confirmation ASAP. Discusses precession of the equinox in relation to this theory. Hmmmmm. Hmmh is right - I can see how Sol could be part of a multiple star localised group of stars that are in some sort of locked interaction with each other but looking at the stars we know about makes it seem unlikely. Given that Sol "orbits" the Milky way core every 200-250m years or so a small group with some sort of internal periodic behavior on the scale of 26m years is plausible however a back of the envelope calculation gives me a distance of around 1.75LY as the distance between two Sol masses orbiting each other with a period of 26MY. The problem with that is there isn't anything that big that close - but smaller objects would have that period at a distance of around 1.4LY. Small (<<1 Sol mass) at that range pretty much rules out having any effect on the obects in the Solar System that we are aware of. Looking at the nearest significant masses - the Rigel Kentaurus system has an aggregate mass of around 2xSol @ 4.3LY so it's too far out to be orbitally linked to Sol. The book in question though talks about a 24000 year orbital period for this mystery companion which would imply a distance of ~ 1000 AU, or 20-30 times further than Pluto. There could be something out there that's pretty big (but still << 1 Sol mass) that we haven't seen but I don't see how that would have any effect on Earth (at least any effect more significant than the other bodies we already know about) and it seems all a bit "Well so what"? to me. The proposed link to the precession of the equinoxes and his "Long Year" seemed like a woohoo'ism to me which led me to Amazon which yielded these "Editorial Reviews" QUOTE Graham Hancock, Author, Fingerprints of the Gods A wonderful, stimulating, thought provoking new - or very old - approach to the greatest problems of human history. John Anthony West, Author, Serpent in the Sky A compelling explanation for a major, but studiously neglected mystery... Powerful stuff! Ah nuff said. |
|
|
Guest_Myran_* |
Sep 16 2005, 02:04 PM
Post
#3
|
Guests |
The idea that the Sun might have one small companion star have popped in and out of pop-science fashion a number of times over the last decades.
In almost every version it have been used to reverse engineer various astronomical findings such as the orbits of Uranus and Neptune or for sending comets from the Oort cloud. Someone scraped off the serial number dusted the old theory off even giving the star a name 'Nemesis' added a doomsday scenario probably to sell a lot of books some years back. So I am afraid I have to be as pessemistic as helvick, too me it seems once again to be more obout a book the author wants to sell. But not to be a party crasher: The scenario with a very faint red dwarf or brown dwarf at 1 lightyear or more in one orbit that takes millions of years cant be ruled out. Yet with all the infrared searches brown dwarfs in the Orion nebula etc, so one object that much closer would be bright as a beacon in comparision with those more distant ones, so the chanse that any such have managed to hide might be quite remote IMHO. |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 02:50 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 2-July 05 From: Calgary, Alberta Member No.: 426 |
QUOTE (Myran @ Sep 16 2005, 08:04 AM) But not to be a party crasher: The scenario with a very faint red dwarf or brown dwarf at 1 lightyear or more in one orbit that takes millions of years cant be ruled out. Maybe not entirely, but it has very bad knees. The original Nemesis hypothesis was that, once every 26 million years, a brown-dwarf companion to the Sun brushes the Oort Cloud, leading to periodic comet showers that are claimed to match periodic extinctions on Earth. This periodicity requires Nemesis to have an elliptical orbit with a semimajor axis of about one and a half light-years. Since the orbit has to be elliptical (otherwise the comet showers wouldn't be periodic) Nemesis' greatest distance from Sol would have to be greater than that, though. The problem with this idea is that Alpha Centauri is only about 4 light-years away and we can expect that, from time to time, other stars will get closer. This means that Nemesis' orbit would suffer constant perturbations and, in all likelihood, it would ultimately get ejected from solar orbit. The other idea of a companion star with a ~25K year orbit is pretty ludicrous as, even if it were a brown dwarf, surely its infrared emissions would have been picked up by now. Besides that, the precession of the Earth's equinoxes has already been adequately explained. The only reason to postulate this type of theory is to sell books to people who line up to believe anything "revolutionary" or "unorthodox". |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Sep 16 2005, 02:52 PM
Post
#5
|
Guests |
Yes like Myram says this topics regularly pops in and out of fashion, perhaps because it is also in orbit, with a period of say 10-20 years.
Such a close periodic interacion would explain a strange thing: that orbital variations could create climate changes is known, but it was recently discovered a corelation between the famous 25,000 years climatic cycle and a similar 25,000 cycle of... volcanic activity. However what could have so much gravitationnal effects on Earth would also seriously disturb our nice arrangement of eight planets with neat circular orbits. Also it is difficult to believe that a companion star so far than 1 light-year would have remained linked to the Sun for 5 Billion years: there was certainy many much closer star encounters during this time, to break such a link. Unless such a star interaction could place a stable companion in orbit... At last appears the nature of that companion. Everything star-like would have be found from long (like the white dwarf orbiting Sirius). A brown dwarf or planet is much less heavy, and could disturb the solar system only once at the periastron. But it would disturb it in a very visible way. A black hole or neutron star could significantly interact with the solar system without the need to enter in it, but so close it would be detectable in a way or another, and especially have a strong paralax. The only thing which could be obscure, transparent and still with a heavy mass would be a gas or dust cloud. (This was discussed here |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Sep 16 2005, 02:58 PM
Post
#6
|
Guests |
|
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 04:48 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 45 Joined: 8-August 05 Member No.: 457 |
It had been suggested that a faraway dwarf star, named "Nemesis", was orbiting the sun, or an unknown "Planet X" somewhere far out beyond the solar system that's disturbing the comets in the distant region called the Oort Cloud and might be possible causes for the 62-million-year extinction cycles that were found in geological formations.
However, it has been shown long ago, that the solar barycentre is not being dragged around with respect to the rest of the cosmos by Planet X. By means of high-precision pulsar timings, astronomers using the Australia Telescope National Facility pulsar database found no evidence for non-zero acceleration. The sensitivity achieved by their method is comparable to the acceleration due to a Jupiter-mass planet at 200 AU. The acceleration method rules out the presence of a distant companion (closer than 300-400 AU). |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 05:12 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 2-July 05 From: Calgary, Alberta Member No.: 426 |
QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Sep 16 2005, 08:58 AM) I wasn't being abrupt, Richard. I was being harsh! And on second thought, it _was_ uncalled for. I had Hoaglandites in mind when I wrote that, but it wouldn't take a Hoaglandite mentality to get suckered into believing that theory, really. |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 06:11 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 477 Joined: 2-March 05 Member No.: 180 |
Far-out theores - a small black hole without any infalling matter, or a big chunk of dark matter.
I do recall that they said that a nearby supernova may have induced the nebula to contract and eventually become our solar system. Black hole predecessor perhaps? |
|
|
Sep 16 2005, 11:32 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 362 Joined: 12-June 05 From: Kiama, Australia Member No.: 409 |
QUOTE (Jeff7 @ Sep 17 2005, 05:11 AM) Far-out theores - a small black hole without any infalling matter, or a big chunk of dark matter. I do recall that they said that a nearby supernova may have induced the nebula to contract and eventually become our solar system. Black hole predecessor perhaps? I thought that analysis of the Voyager and Pioneer trajectories has excluded the possibility of any reasonable sized anything out there |
|
|
Sep 17 2005, 01:58 AM
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 477 Joined: 2-March 05 Member No.: 180 |
Hence my "far-out theory" disclaimer.
I do think astronomers would have found something substantial by now, but then, I've not read a whole lot on this subject. |
|
|
Sep 17 2005, 04:12 AM
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 129 Joined: 25-March 05 Member No.: 218 |
QUOTE (Jeff7 @ Sep 16 2005, 01:11 PM) This topic does seem to reappear every now and then. I originally remember it as being an unnoticed "nearby" white dwarf. Except that anything that close (< 2 ly) would have long ago (in the 1940's or 50's) been identified on sky surveys by its high proper motion or parallax. Then it was a brown dwarf. But now with IR obs, that would shine like a beacon at that distance. Then a naked (no disk) black hole. Depending on where it is in its highly elliptical orbit, it might not be noticed or have a noticable effect on things (like Pioneer or Voyagers, ... or maybe it does... the Pioneer Anomaly? ). Since the periaster only has to barely approach the outer Oort cloud to disturb things there.... that's still quite a distance away. 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 |
|
|
Sep 17 2005, 05:23 AM
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 362 Joined: 12-June 05 From: Kiama, Australia Member No.: 409 |
QUOTE (RedSky @ Sep 17 2005, 03:12 PM) Depending on where it is in its highly elliptical orbit, it might not be noticed or have a noticable effect on things (like Pioneer or Voyagers, ... or maybe it does... the Pioneer Anomaly? -RedSky My understanding is that since these are heading out of the solar system in 4 different directions and are now almost 200AU apart that anything like this would by now have been noticed. I believe that the measured Pioneer anomoly is an unexplained acceleration towards the Sun which can not be the result of a dense body in the outer solar system. I dont know how far out a body would need to be or the mass limit that would have made its presence known by now, but 200,000 AU is the outer limit at which anything couild be considered to be gravtitationaly bound to our sun. |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Sep 17 2005, 06:45 AM
Post
#14
|
Guests |
QUOTE (Rob Pinnegar @ Sep 16 2005, 05:12 PM) I wasn't being abrupt, Richard. I was being harsh! And on second thought, it _was_ uncalled for. I had Hoaglandites in mind when I wrote that, but it wouldn't take a Hoaglandite mentality to get suckered into believing that theory, really. I had no bad though! The idea of a dark companion is not exactly a hoaglandite, but some may take it in a hoagland mentality. There is enough matter into this mere forum topic to dismiss the idea of a dark companion. By the way I learned that Hoagland does not exist it is a CIA plot to raise interest into space funding. |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Sep 17 2005, 06:48 AM
Post
#15
|
Guests |
QUOTE (blobrana @ Sep 16 2005, 04:48 PM) However, it has been shown long ago, that the solar barycentre is not being dragged around with respect to the rest of the cosmos by Planet X. By means of high-precision pulsar timings, astronomers using the Australia Telescope National Facility pulsar database found no evidence for non-zero acceleration. The sensitivity achieved by their method is comparable to the acceleration due to a Jupiter-mass planet at 200 AU. The acceleration method rules out the presence of a distant companion (closer than 300-400 AU). 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!! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 12:15 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE 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. |