Jump to content

stargazine_ep44_banner.thumb.jpg.6153c4d39ed5a64b7d8af2d3d6061f61.jpg

JulianO

Members
  • Content Count

    658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JulianO

  1. It's one of the top simulations around, along with the Durham based Eagle project. They use different simulation codes, but derived from the same base.
  2. Happy to give some talks if you are still looking, I have a few - let me know. Julian
  3. I'm not sure what you are trying to calculate, if you know the star is 0.01 Lsun, then you already have the answer! What question are you trying to answer, and what data do you have?
  4. These are all ratios, so it will give an answer in terms of solar luminosities. I.e. and answer of 1 would be the output of the sun. R should be in meters and divided by the solar radius in meters, or both in kilometers, or both in solar radii, as long as both R's are in the same units you're fine. Same with T, but as solar temperature isn't often used as a base unit, I'd suggest K in that case. So for a star twice as big in radius as the sun, and at 12000K it would be approx L = (2/1)2 * (12000/6000)4 = 4 * 16 = 64 solar luminosities.
  5. I think the stealing of material is a relatively slow process - remember it has to gather a significant mass to go supernova, maybe a tenth of a Sun, so it's probably not a quick process. I don't know in detail why they produce different elements, but its probably because of the way they go off. In a type 1a, they are tipped over the limit and suddenly the oxygen and helium which is in a degenerate state starts to burn. As degenerate matter is not much affected by heat, it doesn't explode immediately, but burns as a wave across the dwarf and then explodes. Strong silicon lines show up in a SN1
  6. No, because the SN1a is giving out light, so you see emission bands, and the light is enough to outshine the galaxy. Some of it may get absorbed in gas and dust on it's way out of the galaxy, but that would come out as absorption. Just out of interest as type 1a's are a result of a companion white dwarf munching on material from a healthy neighbour and not core collapse is it thought that they still produce the heavy elements at supernova and do they still result in the dense neutron star remnants? Yes lots of heavy elements are produced from SN1a, but a different set from the core collapse
  7. Not all 1a's are quite the same, so there is still some tweaking to do to get a good luminosity reading. However all 1a's have a characteristic spectroscopic signature, so by looking at the spectra you can determine what sort it is. This is why there is a 1a,1b,1c etc - they looked sort of similar, spectroscopically but have different lines in them. It turns out 1b & 1c are produced by a completely different mechanism (core collapse), but that's where hindsight is so useful
  8. We have not directly detected dark matter, but we have good evidence that it exists. Not 100%, but in science we never really get to 100%. The neutrino was proposed in theory in 1930, it was 1954 before one was detected directly, and that was with something you could make in the lab pretty easily. Even now they are very hard to detect. Dark Matter may not even be detectable directly, it may have a very very tiny cross section - or indeed none at all. The universe doesn't have to play by a set of rules meaning we can detect everything directly. The fact is we have about 5 or 6 lines of indepen
  9. We can work out the approximate age of Andromeda, and even some of the stars in the outer reaches, and its clear they are billions of years old, and the flinging out time scale would be on the order of a few million years, so they really should have gone by now several times over. Additionally, from rotational stability dynamics, a spinning mass of particles such as the stars in Andromeda would become unstable and the disk would start to break away from the smooth disk, forming clumps and oscillations (like a badly balanced wheel) even if the velocities are right for the mass - there is a cer
  10. The stars further out are moving too fast if you ignore dark matter. The galactic disk would be unstable, and stars would be flung out. Dark matter is added so there is more mass, and so more gravity to hold them in their orbits. The stars can go around faster if there is a stronger restoring force. You can spin a rock on a rope faster around your head with a stronger string sort of thing. Basically to keep in orbit too forces have to balance, that of gravity pulling it in, and centripetal pushing it out. So you have F = Gm1 m2 / r2 being the force of gravity - m1 is the mass inside the orbi
  11. They are balanced by the gravity of the dark matter surrounding them. So - yes they are moving at the right speed, but partly because we throw in enough dark matter to make it so.
  12. As far as we know, it stayed the same speed, its just space was stretched out "under its feet" very quickly. Inflation is partly brought about as a theory to stop us having to increase the speed of light, and still end up with the universe as it is.
  13. Depends how much dark matter you add, but if you add the right amount, then they are just fine too. Typically DM dwarfs the stuff you can see. E.g.,
  14. The ones around the centre are ok, its the ones further out that are going too fast.
  15. I think most eject planets will be very small. We've only seen the big ones, because they are the only ones we stand a chance of detecting. Simulations of planetary formation show a lot of stuff getting ejected or thrown into the sun. Similarly Jupiter has cleared out large numbers of asteroids, sending them into the sun or outer space. I think I'm right that you need a 3 body interaction to eject something typically, and I think the same would be true of capture. So the planet would have to interact with Jupiter or similar to be captured into a stable orbit around the sun. Taking 30AU encomp
  16. Rogue, or free floating planets are probably quite common. The way planets interact as they form, some of them will get ejected and cast loose. The chance of one coming through our solar system is probably very very small. Mostly because space is very big, and planets are very tiny in relation to the separation. So the chance of a free planet encountering another system is pretty unlikely. Also for a planet to be ejected from the solar system is has to be going faster than about 42 km/s, so at this speed it is unlikely to be caught by another system maybe just deflected a bit. So being capture
  17. Its Feynmans Multiple Paths theory. Basically if you do the maths and say "lets suppose it can take every possible path between A & B" you find that due to quantum interference most of them cancel out an amount to nothing, and the directish (to some fine tolerance) ones are the only ones left over. Put a double slit in the way, and you distort this and find there are a couple of ways it can go, and interfere with itself... well thats the 10 second version anyway!
  18. Major mergers don't happen very often, well they do in galaxy clusters, but less so out in the field. Its an ongoing area of research, so ideas are still somewhat fluid.
  19. It depends a lot on how much gas is involved in the collision. Dry mergers (galaxies with little gas) almost always seem to produce ellipticals. "Wet" mergers in contrast can produce spiral like or lenticular depending exactly on the interaction of the gas and if it ends up swirling around and making new stars.
  20. Both Hertzsprung and Shapley tried to calibrate based on nearby Cepheids for which there were known parallax measurements. There were a lot of issues to solve about extinction and so on before a firm equation for the distance was worked out, and of course there was then the issue of Cepheid II's!
  21. The Cepheid variable relationship was worked out by Henrietta Swan Leavitt observing Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds. This is a smallish (astronomically speaking) cluster of stars a ways outside our galaxy, so to all intents and purposes are more or less all at the same distance. A bit like observing the lights of Manchester from London, they're all about the same distance away. So if there is a relationship between their brightening and dimming and their luminosity, you can tell that the relationship is pretty much fixed. It turned out there is a little more to it in the case of Cepheids
  22. It's sort of impractical. You can't keep that hole through the atmosphere open - indeed I don't think you can open it in the first place, and there is a lot of pressure counteracting it so it would be a lot of effort. So - the solutions are place telescopes on very high mountainsput them in spaceremove the atmospheric shimmer by computer all of which are being done now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.