Colossal star found.
- Thread starter Stevisiov
- 53 comments
- 6,370 views
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?src=me&ref=science
Here is the amusing story of a scientist recently published in the journal Science who insists that gravity is not a fundamental force at all, but rather an artifact of thermodynamics.
Respectfully submitted.
Dotini
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
There's not a lot new in saying we don't really "get" gravitation in the same way as we do the other fundamental forces. There's a lot of work there yet to be done and it isn't unfair to say that we can see the results but not the processes that lead there and, like "centrifugal force" it may be an emergent property of other interactions.
I'm not sure how that or the quoted paper mean that gravity "is a form of the electrostatic force". For that matter I don't know what "the electrostatic force" is - I'm aware of only the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity.
I'm not sure how that or the quoted paper mean that gravity "is a form of the electrostatic force". For that matter I don't know what "the electrostatic force" is - I'm aware of only the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity.
- 17,865
- 509
In agreement with Famine here, I fail to see any mention of Gravity being an Electrostatic Force, whatever that maybe to begin with.
The paper in question describes Gravity to be an emergent phenomenon, not its own force.
Of course, I'd not take the writer too seriously anyhow, given how they describe string theorey to the layman...
Yay, layman-ization. Along with "glowing" and "exploding" black holes, no... X-ray emissions and slow decay into inert matter, yes.
And Gravity being entropic makes little sense as it is highly predictable and generally pulls things into a more consistent state, rather than disorganizing them like many of the awkward examples state.
Honestly, what is this guy drinking?
The paper in question describes Gravity to be an emergent phenomenon, not its own force.
Of course, I'd not take the writer too seriously anyhow, given how they describe string theorey to the layman...
NY Times
Yay, layman-ization. Along with "glowing" and "exploding" black holes, no... X-ray emissions and slow decay into inert matter, yes.
And Gravity being entropic makes little sense as it is highly predictable and generally pulls things into a more consistent state, rather than disorganizing them like many of the awkward examples state.
Honestly, what is this guy drinking?
- 17,865
- 509
Congratulations on stating the obvious. I'd advise when you post articles to "stir things up" that you explain that, rather than posting seemingly unrelated materials to the point you are trying to make.
At the moment, you seem to be grasping at straws. Ones that you don't much understand yourself, no offense.
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
- 9,473
- QLD, Down Under
- GTP_Paulie
- Paulie LDP
You drink McDonalds drinks from the cup and not a straw? Wierd.
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
While Dotini, as ever, raises some interesting discussion points, I would rather this thread was kept as close to on-topic as possible without drifting off into a(nother) debate about cosmology... as such, I've taken the liberty of changing the title of the Astronomy thread in the Rumble Strip to "Astronomy and Cosmology" and encourage any interested parties to take further discussions into that thread where appropriate.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Terminological confusion: All stars are suns, all suns are stars.
I should probably explain the significance of the really big star. All stars are in a very fine balance (like most things). The two main factors at play are gravity and electromagnetism, compressing the star towards its centre, and the fact it's a honking great ball of furiously hot exploding crap. The natural tendency of furiously hot exploding crap is to expand and the natural tendency of honking great balls is to compact.*
As a result of this, there is a theoretical upper limit for the size of a star - the nature of gravity means that as things get lighter and further away, the condensing force reduces. An outer shell of hydrogen on a star should only be able to get so far away before it can't be retained by the star and just sloughs off into space. There's also a theoretical upper limit for the mass for similar reasons.
R136a1 seems to break this limit for a star's mass.
*This was actually explained pretty nicely and used as a plot device in an episode of Stargate SG-1. Using the stargate dialled to a gate on a planet being consumed by a black hole, they extracted some of the mass of the star. This reduced the compression, leaving expansion to become dominant and turned the star into a supernova.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
I'd like a quote on that!
My reference (confirming my limited knowledge) wikipedia:
So the sun is a special star which is the center of the Solar System.
Finally some science in normal language, really helps understanding it.
Did they annihilate the Replicators in this? Saw the episode I think, but do not follow the series.
==============================================
So conclusion on R136a1: seems to break this limit for a star's mass, proving that the current theories of forces of furiously hot exploding crap and honking great balls are not completely understood.
- 24,002
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Our sun is just another star. All stars potentially have their own solar systems. For those solar systems, their stars can be considered as their own 'sun'.
Our 'sun' is only a special star to us.
- 29,366
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
And if we were on a planet orbiting one of our nearest neighbours, Alpha Centauri, our Sun (Sol) would merely be a moderately bright star near Cassiopeia...
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
A+, brother Vince!
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
The terms "Sun" and "sun" aren't wholly interchangeable.
All the big honking balls of furiously exploding crap are stars. They're probably all also suns - since the term "sun" seems to be mainly used to reflect stars with bodies which orbit them, and star formation as we understand it should require the formation of secondary orbiting bodies (planets, dwarf planets, asteroids and comets). Only one of them is the Sun, which is often called "Sol" to avoid this type of confusion.
It's a barrier science often faces - we express ourselves so precisely and carefully that it almost becomes another language.
Of course stars aren't necessarily all that big, they don't honk, aren't balls, aren't furious, don't explode and don't contain any crap. So scientifically, it's a horrible description. But "size-variable, oblate spheroids (due to magnetic and emergent rotational forces) primarily composed of light elements in a plasma state undergoing nuclear fusion at temperatures varying from 4kK to 40kK" doesn't really help anyone.
It was Apophis's fleet and new mothership.
Not wholly. R136a1 does appear to be sloughing off an awful lot of mass - quoted as 50 Solar Masses in the last million years. Or an entire Sun's-worth between the time humanity discovered clothes and today.
- 14,059
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
Oh, thanks for ruining the story for me. I kid, I never watch Stargate. The most sci-fi-ish thing I've ever watched is Star Wars.
On-topic: I've watched a few documentaries on stars on Discovery Channel and Nat Geo (before my family switched from Sky to freeview
) and I thought that the only chance we'd get to see stars the size of *checks previous posts* R136a1 would be through a mega-powerful telescope which can see for billions of light years.
- 2,529
- G-D Luxembourg
- GTP_Vince_Fiero
OK R136a1 is not fully stable, still remain with my conclusion that the size surprised, so the current theory on the forces has some flaws in it.
That is progress, current theory brings you to a certain level, you observe something is not as expected, you improve your theory to explain your observations.
What I find fascinating is that the maths these days behind the theory will bring you a lot of new things, that you then can try to observe later = your theory proceeds the observation.
e.g. Black holes seem to have been started in 1783 as idea, really recognised by theory in 1933 and kind of proven in 1998.
Looking into this it seems that there are still quite some discussions on Black Holes.
P.S.: I have a scientific background, but find that generally the jargon is indeed a barrier for many. I see picking up jargon and functioning as translator one thing in my career that is a constant.
- 1,762
- NG9
- Shin_Roh
This kind of stuff makes me want to live forever. All the things we will miss when we're gone. Its upsetting. Just imagine what man will discover in a hundred years from now. You cant can you i wish to be there.
i wish to be there.
- 1,942
- Emerging from semi-retirement
- GTP_DGiant2000
- I think not
This kind of stuff makes me want to live forever. All the things we will miss when we're gone. Its upsetting. Just imagine what man will discover in a hundred years from now. You cant can you
I agree, in fact its strange to think that there are some things the human race will most likely never find out, when we're talking about things with lifespans of billions of years. Its fascinating to read up on these kinds of things, the time scales and distances involved are almost impossible to comprehend.
Similar threads
