Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Flat Star

  1. Jun 29, 2003 #1
    First off I will step out and say that Astromomy and Cosmology is not my bag! I am a Computer techie through and through but the other day I was on space.com and saw the coolest thing and was wondering where I can read more on it or if anyone here knew more about it

    They were talking about a star that was spinning sooo fast that is was starting to flatten out. IT was the most amazing thing! Did I read the article right or did I miss understand? Can that really happen? If so... are there other stars out there like that? What makes it pick up sooo much speed?

    Thanks!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2003 #2
    You read it correct. It was a bit flat. Nobody is quite sure why yet, but expect theories soon enough. And chances are there are other stars out there like it.
     
  4. Jun 30, 2003 #3

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The Earth is slightly flattened at the poles because of it's angular momentum, it' the same forces that 'flatten' stars too.
     
  5. Jun 30, 2003 #4
    Yes, but the thing is, this star is extremely flattened. Nobody is sure how it could have retained so much mass with such a high angular momentum.
     
  6. Jun 30, 2003 #5

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    blurb from CNN...
     
  7. Jun 30, 2003 #6

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sorry brad didn't know about the new flat star, anyone got any ideas about what could be keeping it together?
     
  8. Jun 30, 2003 #7
    I've not a clue. My initial hunch is that maybe there is an unusual abundance of dark matter located near the star, but who knows? Until we develop gravity wave astronomy, if ever, dark matter will continue to evade us and my speculation is as good as saying magical unicorns are holding the star together.
     
  9. Jul 1, 2003 #8

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's what I thought too, there is evidence that non-bayronic dark matter can be trapped at the centre of a star, the neutrino emmisions from our own sun are significantly less than what was expected which has lead some to theorize that there is dark matter locked in the core of the sun.
     
  10. Jul 1, 2003 #9
    Ah, but we resolved the solar neutrino problem by showing that neutrinos can indeed change species en route (ie go from electron neutrino to tau neutrino or mu neutrino or any combo of that). It was in Scientific American once, and I read about it on another physics website before as well. Check it out!

    As for dark matter, it would not have any real effect on neutrinos any ways. Think about it. Dark matter is a type of matter that interacts extremely weakly with normal matter. So do neutrinos. Neutrinos can go through a light year's worth of solid lead and not interact once. So the presence of dark matter (actually neutrinos are considered dark matter as well, specifically WIMPS) would hardly impede neutrino emissions.
     
  11. Jul 1, 2003 #10

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm trying to remebr where I read it, but there was a serious scientific theory about dark matter trapped in the sun causing the underabundance of solar neutrinos (but if the problems solved it's obviously incorrect). I think it was to do with particularly massive neutrino species[?]
     
  12. Jul 1, 2003 #11
    Is it not possible that there exists actual planets in orbit with the star creating an unusual gravitational environment? Much like the moon pulls on our tides? Certinaly if there were planets in orbit, we would have no way of detecting their presence, without some kind of 'wobble' analysis. Just a thought:wink:
     
  13. Jul 1, 2003 #12
    true... would have to be a pretty big planet wouldn't it though?? for the planet itself to shape the star the planets gravity would have to be pretty close if not stronger than the star.. and I don't know that we have found any planets with stronger gravitational pulls than any star... but of course.. we haven't found that many planets
     
  14. Jul 1, 2003 #13

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well a black hole sounds more likely than several brown giants. Or maybe it's the result of a collision between two stars, but I'm just plucking these out of the air.
     
  15. Jul 1, 2003 #14
    i guess the bottom line is it could be any number of things that caused the stars shape.. until they study it more or perhaps find more of the same type.. it will all just remain in theory
     
  16. Jul 2, 2003 #15
    I love seeing the way people discuss "dark matter" as if it was actually a scientific construct - which it is not!

    Yes, I remember erading the article. Exchange of angular momentum with a nearer body seems the simplest explanation. As to the cause of that exchange - that's the actual mystery.

    [wanders off muttering about "dark matter"...may as well blame the bogey man...mutter]
     
  17. Jul 2, 2003 #16

    jcsd

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I, Brian it's not the amount of angular mometum it has that's the mystery it's how it manages to hold itself together.

    And what exactly is unscientific about non-bayronic dark mass???? It's existance has been well implied and you'd have to be a pretty leftfield cosmologist to discount it's existance.
     
  18. Jul 2, 2003 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Dark matter hasn't been positively defined, but its properties have been inferred from its effects in some detail. For example we know the effects are not due to barionic (ordinary) matter because that type of matter has interactions that we could detect. And we know it clusters in the halos around galaxies from the pattern of its gravity effects. And by the way we know it has mass because it gravitates. And we know most of it is "cold" or slow moving so we can say that only about 3% of it could be in massive neutrinos which move at nearly the speed of light.

    Of course you can hypothesize that all these effects are due to (Johnny Carson's) Chicken named George, but the physicsts, appealing to Okham, say cold, dark, massive, non-barionic, halo object stuff. And massive stuff is by definition matter.
     
  19. Jul 2, 2003 #18
    The Boogie Man? This is a forum for the exchange of ideas, not your personal anger management therapy. I would suggest if you don't have anything insightful to add to the discussion, don't post.
     
  20. Jul 2, 2003 #19
    Indeed. We know the star has a lot of angular momentum. What we need to figure out is A)How did it get so much, and B)How is it staying together with so much angular momentum?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Flat Star
  1. No star (Replies: 1)

  2. Flat universe (Replies: 2)

  3. Flatness problem? (Replies: 5)

  4. Is the universe flat ? (Replies: 3)

  5. Is spacetime flat? (Replies: 13)

Loading...