Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:01:58 UTC No. 16555531

> The shape is thought to be formed through the interaction between the stellar companion and the carbon star, as has been seen in other binary systems
yeah, completely unexplained

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:04:39 UTC No. 16555537

>>16555531
>is thought
go on kiddo, push that braincell
show the star involved, take as much time on wikipedia as you need

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:10:10 UTC No. 16555544

>>16555526
That's a mighty fine structure you got there...

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:13:32 UTC No. 16555549

>>16555526
3-body problem

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:14:46 UTC No. 16555553

>>16555549
its simple, 3 body solar systems just cant exist

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:17:56 UTC No. 16555562

>>16555553
Wot

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:21:48 UTC No. 16555573

>>16555562
name a current known solar system that has 3 interacting bodies

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:03:33 UTC No. 16555641

>>16555573
....

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:44:34 UTC No. 16555681

>>16555573
First, a three body system doesn't need to be a solar system. It can be any three gravitationally attrated bodies. Second, the three body problem doesn't require the existence of any real three-body system to be a problem. It's an abstract mathematical problem based on physical principles. No true two-body system exists either, but we can model it mathematically. Physicists toy with countless mathematical models that don't exist in reality. Harmonic oscillator, particle in a box, a fucking circle rolling down a frictionless 1-D inclined plane. Physicists rarely ever model the real world, only idealizations which approximate real systems.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:57:06 UTC No. 16555692

boson stars

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:58:48 UTC No. 16555695

>>16555553
Alpha Centauri: Alpha Cen A, B, and Proxima

The 3-body problem isn't about that such systems can't exist. It's about how there are no analytic closed-form solutions to such orbits and that they are chaotic.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:01:02 UTC No. 16555700

>>16555695
But how do you know they'll still exist? That's the whole point, predicting if and when shit goes down? As in they're not stable?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:03:07 UTC No. 16555706

>>16555700
Oh they are definitely unstable. That doesn't mean they can't exist for millions or billions of years.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:06:52 UTC No. 16555713

>>16555706
Is there math to predict they'd at least not collide?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:10:35 UTC No. 16555716

>>16555713
Yes. But iirc the lifetimes of the stars is less than the expected time the entire system would break apart.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:12:55 UTC No. 16555720

>>16555716
ah cool, didn't know that.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:42:18 UTC No. 16555743

>>16555526
non-sci fag here
I remember reading hawkins book and IIRC there is a section in which he describes the fact that matter and anti-matter can be created out of nothing near black holes (or heavy bodies, I don't remember well)

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:44:33 UTC No. 16555747

>>16555692
like, stars made out of strictly boson particles? that's an interesting idea although wouldn't that make them massless? and what kind of bosons? if there's no fermionic matter that means there's no excited atoms to produce photons or any kind of visible light. there couldn't be any gluons either since there's no quarks. and the Z and W bosons wouldn't make any sense either since there's no fermionic matter decay to produce those. so what would they be made of? an undiscovered boson?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:48:44 UTC No. 16555753

>>16555743
It's called Hawking Radiation. That isn't actually what happens but it's good enough for a simple one sentence pop-sci explanation. It's also unproven because we can't measure it (yet).

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:50:55 UTC No. 16555755

>>16555753
but isn't that just the quantum foam? virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence? isn't Casimir effect proof for that?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:54:23 UTC No. 16555758

>>16555755
Yes but virtual particle aren't physically real, hence the name, but they make for a good visualisation device. There is an interaction with quantum fields around a blackhole, and that is what Hawking calculated, but the result is thermal radiation, not a matter/anti-matter particle.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:57:06 UTC No. 16555762

>>16555758
>matter/anti-matter particle.
matter/anti-matter interaction results in photons, net plus. virtual particle pairs net zero on interaction no?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:58:59 UTC No. 16555765

>>16555762
The pop-sci explanation of Hawking Radiation is that one of the two particles produced falls into the blackhole while the other escapes (taking some of the blackholes mass with it).

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 00:01:17 UTC No. 16555766

>>16555765
Yeah I never understood that bit, supposedly a "normal" particle would escape if it's on the outside of the boundary and the "opposite" particle would fall in, but that would need to be some kind of negative mass particle of sorts and would have to net 0 on interaction with anything in the black hole, this way carrying mass away from it. weird, never really understood the nature of these exact particles, they can't be matter/antimatter and they have to be real not "imaginary".

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 00:15:54 UTC No. 16555779

>>16555747
erm idk all i know is that it has a doughnut shape