How Can Doppler Shifts Resolve Binary Star Orbital Inclination Ambiguity?

AI Thread Summary
In a binary star system, determining the orbital inclination of the secondary star can be ambiguous based solely on visual observations. This ambiguity can be resolved by analyzing the Doppler shifts, specifically redshifts and blueshifts, of the stars. If the star moving downward in the orbit is blue-shifted, it indicates the orbital plane is inclined towards the observer, while a redshift suggests it is inclined away. The ability to resolve the stars is crucial; if they appear as a single point of light, Doppler measurements won't provide clarity. Understanding these shifts is essential for accurately interpreting the orbital dynamics of binary star systems.
joriarty
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
This question has been bugging me... I've rephrased the question a bit so it shouldn't require much astrophysics knowledge to understand, just a bit of regular physics.

Consider a binary star system. By doing some geometry based on visual observations of the positions of the two stars over time, we can figure out the inclination of the orbit of the secondary star around the primary. However we can't tell from micrometer eyepiece measurements alone whether this orbit is tilted towards or away from us. How do you think this ambiguity could be resolved?

I'm thinking we could analyse the redshifts and blueshifts of the secondary star. I am imagining a system in the sky where the secondary star orbits clockwise around the primary and the top of this elliptical orbit as we observe it is tilted away from us, but I can't think how the measured redshifts or blueshifts would change if the orbit was tilted the other way. Perhaps I am on the wrong track...

Thoughts?

Thanks :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on how much information you have available. If the binary system is so close that you can't resolve the two stars (e.g. you can only see one 'spot' of light, and you are 'seeing' the orbit via other measurments) then there is no way to tell.

If you can resolve the stars, you could do exactly as you say: measure the Doppler shifts. If the star moving downwards (relative to your view) is also blue-shifted, then the closer star is lower (i.e. the orbital plane is inclined relative to your line of sight), if the star moving downwards is redshifted, then the closer star is higher (i.e. the orbital plane is declined [negative inclined] relative to your line of sight).
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top