Binary system of stars (##\alpha## - centauri)

AI Thread Summary
##\alpha##-Centauri is a binary star system with a separation of 8.0'' and 9.7'' from their center of mass and is located 1.31 parsecs from Earth, with a revolution period of 80.1 years. To calculate the masses of the stars, the equation ##\omega^2 = \frac{G(M_1+M_2)}{a^3}## is used, along with ##\omega = \frac{2\pi}{T}##, allowing for the determination of the combined mass. A separate equation is needed to find individual masses, and the center of mass definition is suggested as a potential solution. The discussion highlights the importance of converting arcseconds to radians for accurate distance calculations. The user has derived reasonable results but is encouraged to present their calculations for verification.
Aleolomorfo
Messages
70
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


##\alpha##-Centuary is in a binary visual system with another star. Their separation, from their CM, is 8.0'' and 9.7''. The distance from the Earth is 1.31pc. Their revolution period around the CM is 80.1 years. I have to find masses and luminosities for each star.

Homework Equations


Third Newton's law: ##\omega^2 = \frac{G(M_1+M_2)}{a^3}##

The Attempt at a Solution


Immagine.jpg
[/B]
With the help of this picture I can calculate ##a=1.7''\times1.31pc##. Then I can solve this system of equations:
$$\omega^2 = \frac{G(M_1+M_2)}{a^3}$$
$$\omega = \frac{2\pi}{T}$$
In this way I find only ##M_1+M_2##. I need another equation but I do not find it.
For the luminosity I can use the scaling relation that ##L\propto M^4##. However, firstly I need to find ##M_1## and ##M_2## separately.
 

Attachments

  • Immagine.jpg
    Immagine.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 491
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry but I have noticed that I had switched the separations from the CM. I put 9,7'' on the shorter segment and viceversa, but it is not a problem since I have used the sum.
 
Maybe I have an idea: I can use the definition of CM.
$$M_1\times r_1=M_2\times r_2$$ with ##r1=1,31pc\times 9.7''## and ##r_2=1.31pc\times 8''##
I think it is ok, isn't it?
 
You can't just multiply arcseconds by distance to get the angular distance; you have to convert to radians first.
 
tms said:
You can't just multiply arcseconds by distance to get the angular distance; you have to convert to radians first.
Yes, I have implied it, I should have written explicitly, sorry. I have done it and I have found reasonable results, so I think it is ok.
 
Aleolomorfo said:
Yes, I have implied it, I should have written explicitly, sorry. I have done it and I have found reasonable results, so I think it is ok.
You should show your work and the values that you obtained.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top