the unexplained, the un-understood, this thread is about how little we know.what you got /sci/
> 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 systemsyeah, completely unexplained
>>16555531>is thoughtgo on kiddo, push that braincellshow the star involved, take as much time on wikipedia as you need
>>16555526That's a mighty fine structure you got there...
>>165555263-body problem
>>16555549its simple, 3 body solar systems just cant exist
>>16555553Wot
>>16555562name a current known solar system that has 3 interacting bodies
>>16555573....
>>16555573First, 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.
boson stars
>>16555553Alpha Centauri: Alpha Cen A, B, and ProximaThe 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.
>>16555695But 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?
>>16555700Oh they are definitely unstable. That doesn't mean they can't exist for millions or billions of years.
>>16555706Is there math to predict they'd at least not collide?
>>16555713Yes. But iirc the lifetimes of the stars is less than the expected time the entire system would break apart.
>>16555716ah cool, didn't know that.
>>16555526non-sci fag hereI 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)
>>16555692like, 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?
>>16555743It'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).
>>16555753but isn't that just the quantum foam? virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence? isn't Casimir effect proof for that?
>>16555755Yes 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.
>>16555758>matter/anti-matter particle.matter/anti-matter interaction results in photons, net plus. virtual particle pairs net zero on interaction no?
>>16555762The 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).
>>16555765Yeah 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".
>>16555747erm idk all i know is that it has a doughnut shape
