Is the Galactic Coriolis Effect Debunked or Proven?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
35 replies · 14K views
TrickyDicky said:
can that be done in practice? I mean determine the rotation direction of distant stars?
I think there is one exoplanet that has actually been optically resolved (separately from the observation of its star wobbling back and forth from us), so we must at least be beginning to have the capability to tell whether other planetary systems do rotate in the same sense as the galaxy. (I'd also expect, if we can resolve a planet, then we can easily take spectra from opposite edges of the star.) But I haven't done the literature search yet myself.. :wink: Not convinced it would be a priority use of telescope time though, unless you were expecting it to give more information about galactic dynamics perhaps...
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
cesiumfrog said:
I think there is one exoplanet that has actually been optically resolved (separately from the observation of its star wobbling back and forth from us), so we must at least be beginning to have the capability to tell whether other planetary systems do rotate in the same sense as the galaxy. (I'd also expect, if we can resolve a planet, then we can easily take spectra from opposite edges of the star.) But I haven't done the literature search yet myself.. :wink: Not convinced it would be a priority use of telescope time though, unless you were expecting it to give more information about galactic dynamics perhaps...
Yup, I'm not convinced either, but faenor suggested it could (give info about galactic dynamics) , thus my question about in which way exactly?
 
faenor said:
If your correct, Janus, then there should be observational data to support your statement. If your are using observational data could you provide it, thank you?

I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.

I just don't see galactic rotation having any major effect on the rotation of stellar systems. Our own solar system appears to belie that idea. it rotates at a 60 degree angle to the galactic equator.
 
Janus said:
I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.

I just don't see galactic rotation having any major effect on the rotation of stellar systems. Our own solar system appears to belie that idea. it rotates at a 60 degree angle to the galactic equator.

Ofcourse Janus, your Logic is sound. Unfortunately I am woefully ignorant regarding macroscopic astronomical effects, hence my inquary.

I have posted something in an astronomy forum to hopefully bring some observational data to this discussion.

Here is a link for those who wish to follow up

http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/47869/452318.aspx#452318"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Janus said:
I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.


I think your statement is too strong. Examples: small Foucault pendula; precision water basins.

Sure, in a typical washbasin the Coriolis effect is swamped by small external forces, but what external forces exist to reverse the rotation of collapsing pockets of galactic gas?
 
Janus said:
I was merely pointing out that if galactic rotation effected stellar system rotation, that you would not see any difference between the two sides of the galactic equator. That "if" in my mind is very unlikely. For one, we know that for instance, the rotation of the Earth effects on systems is too weak to effect something even a meter across. A stellar system is many times smaller than that compared to the galaxy. Not only that, but the Earth rotates in one day, compared to the 250 million years it takes for the solar system to make one trip around the galaxy.

Actuallly star systems aren't much smaller compared to the size of the galaxy than 1 meter compared to the size of the earth, about 10^(-7).
They are however formed by contraction of gas clouds that can start out much larger, and can also take millions of years to collapse, so I'm not sure the influence of the galactic rotation is completely unimportant.