[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 64 KB, 800x600, galaxy_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2835154 No.2835154 [Reply] [Original]

Sup /sci/ons, quick question.

Is it possible for there to exist somewhere in the universe a solar system as big as our galaxy? Where the star is as big as the galactic core, and the orbital radius of the planets expands to that of the milky ways outermost arms?

>> No.2835158

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.

>> No.2835161

>>2835158
>Is it possible? Yes

No.

>> No.2835164

>>2835161

Prove it, faggot.

>> No.2835163

Well according to Jindlers Law of Galactic system gravitation, m /=/ 4(PI)r / mc^2 * Pp sigma n .
In short, this tells us that the maximum power output for any sun is 98.4 billion billion watts, telling us the maximum size to mass ratio of intergalactic space

>> No.2835166

>>2835163

Can someone explain this to me? I tried google but couldnt really find anything usefull.

>> No.2835167

A star as big as the galactic core would be a black hole.

>> No.2835172

Basically, no. If nothing else, you couldn't have a star that large.

I guess you could have a core-sized black hole with nothing but a few planets orbiting it at unbelievably large distances, but I don't think it would be considered a solar system.

I suppose THAT could actually happen though - say two galaxies collide, somehow the cores don't merge and a black hole goes flying off with only a few gravitationally-bound planet-sized objects remaining. But it's not very realistic. (Also, not your question, but there would be literally zero possibility of detecting the planets so we'd never notice one if it existed.)

I guess it does raise an interesting question of how big a solar system can be, though.

Oh, and extra pedantry by the way - if it's not ours, it's just a planetary system and not a "solar" system.

>> No.2835173

>>2835164
Idiot.

>> No.2835178

>>2835172
No, you can still call it a solar system. "The" solar system refers to our own system. "A" solar system does not.

>> No.2835179
File: 22 KB, 792x572, sunsciednce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2835179

>>2835167

Not if it had enough thermonuclear power firing in reverse from it's surface inward, which a star that size would have.

There's kind of a black area where stars of a certain size can't exist due to these forces not balancing out, when they're just a bit bigger than current supergiants, but theoretically it's possible for one thousands of times bigger than canis majoris but nut 3 times as big.

attached pic for reference

>> No.2835186

>>2835172

That's a good question, how big CAN a system be? Is there any way of working it out? Also, is it possible that all galaxies are simply orbiting a huge black hole somewhere in the universe?

>> No.2835191

>>2835178
Really? I always figured because it referred specifically to 'sol' it was just for this one. And wikipedia agreed, not that that means anything.

>> No.2835193

>>2835186
Also, is it possible that all galaxies are simply orbiting a huge black hole somewhere in the universe?

your mind = blown
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

>> No.2835196

i would say its very unlikely
the galactic core has a diameter of around
100.000 lightyears = 946 053 620 706 800 000 Km

the biggest star known has 1 460 550 000 Km in diameter, which is 647 737 921 times smaller than the galactic core.

so in order to achieve the attractive forces needed ( i supose) the star has to be
647 737 921 times bigger than the biggest known

>> No.2835197

>>2835191
According to lolinternetdictionaries, the term can refer to either.

It's not like "Solar Radiation" is used only in reference to the Sun. Or a Solar Panel would be called something different in another star system.

>> No.2835199

>>2835172
damn youre smart!

>> No.2835203

>>2835193
It is also somewhere in the past, and therefore, not possible, since it had to be so far away it would have to exist in the universe when it was too young to have created such black holes imo.

>> No.2835205

>>2835179

What the fuck am I reading?

>> No.2835207
File: 8 KB, 200x120, woah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2835207

>>2835193

>> No.2835209

>>2835186
from wikipedia, apparently the sun is the strongest thing for about 2 light years out. after that other stars have higher gravity.

doubt there's anything orbiting out there tho

>> No.2835216

>>2835203
I hope nobody's actually claiming it's a single object. And it's not all that big, it's apparently smallish with an even larger 'object' (that thing being a supercluster of galaxies) behind it confusing us.

Still, the idea that there's something we can't actually see that's big enough to shift galaxies, AND the fact we can tell it's there... it's pretty cool IMO.

>> No.2835220

>>2835193
and what if there are no other dimensions but several big bangs and each one creates its own universe (as we know it) with its own great attractor?

your mind = black hole

>> No.2835225
File: 33 KB, 302x300, 1286366479456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2835225

>>2835220

>> No.2835231

>>2835225
>>2835225
FUCK YOU!
MY OPINION IS AWESOME!

>> No.2835244

everyones mind blown... NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDNEV9EW06g&feature=player_embedded

>> No.2835278

>>2835209
About the "Dark Flow" - the thing behind Great Attractor (actually I guess you have read it, the link is for the rest of us):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

I will just say - a pure evil hides there. And it attracts us...
But technically yes it is strangely worrying that we can't detect it, but it still affects us. One of the reasons could be that gravitational waves are not affected by absolute value of gravitational field. So they propagate always with the speed c, while light is slown down in gravitational potentials so it is delayed behind gravitational waves. Hence we are pulled by something that according to light we receive doesn't exist - but according to grav. waves-fields it is already formed.

Is such scenario possible? Is velocity of gravitational waves really independent of the absolute value of gravit. field?

>> No.2835305

>>2835278
It really is incredible that (barring any "impossible" technologies like faster-than-light, which won't be around in my lifetime) we can NEVER see what it is.

>> No.2835373

>>2835305
I mean if we are attracted towards it, then there is interaction with it, so surely by mapping the gravitational waves It will be possible to extract some information about the source. So in the far-far-far future it is very likely that we will discover what it is. What interest's me more is that whether the gravitational wave propagation velocity is affected by absolute value of gravitational field.

I'll explain why do I find it so intriguing. If it turs out that the G wave velocity is independent, then it would mean that G-field can be used as a more reliable way for detection of space objects since it is not affected by 3rd parities. Also grav-cone would be uniform - hence larger than the deflected, irregular light-cone - which is affected by all the G-fields on it's path.

If grav. waves are unaffected by absolute value of G-field then:
So from that point of view the difference is crucial, especially on a very distant objects. Also grav-cone might be unaffected by space expansion (if space expansion is caused by some sort of negative gravity, then it could not affect the grav. waves), so it would have much much greater visible cone than light.

Obviously difficult to detect, etc. But in theory, I mean 200 years in the past it was impossible to detect microwave background radiation and now it's a sure thing - I hope you got the idea. Not that we would ever be able to get to those insanely far places, but it might be of a handy to know what's going on there...

>> No.2835392

Hey /sci/, just stopping by to say sup? :)

>> No.2835395

>>2835373
I don't know that much about the dark flow, but two things stand out.

first, nowhere on the wikipedia page does it say that our galaxy is being attracted to it, just that basically all galaxies (far away from us) in a particular area of the sky are.

secondly, i forgot.

>> No.2835424

>>2835395
Some citations from Wikipedia but yes you are right it was not mentioned in the Dark Flow article:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_Supercluster

In the bottom part the speculative bit:

Current interest

The Shapley Supercluster lies very close to the direction in which the Local Group of galaxies (including our Galaxy) is moving with respect to the CMB frame. This has led many to speculate that the Shapley Supercluster may indeed be one of the major causes of our peculiar motion (the Great Attractor), and has led to a surge of interest in this supercluster.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

Debate over apparent mass

In 1992, much of the apparent signal of the Great Attractor was attributed to the effect of Malmquist Bias.[3] In 2005, astronomers conducting an X-ray survey of part of the sky known as the Clusters in the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) project reported that the Great Attractor was actually only one tenth the mass that scientists had originally estimated. The survey also confirmed earlier theories that the Milky Way galaxy was in fact being pulled towards a much more massive cluster of galaxies near the Shapley Supercluster which lies beyond the Great Attractor.[4]

>> No.2835432

If it were that big it would also have stars trapped in it's orbit and the only object that big would have to be a supermassive black hole. Wait...

>> No.2835500

>>2835432
What do you mean by "wait..."
That it's unlikely to have such a massive black hole? It surely is weird but could be just a non-linearity from the big bang, even small non linearities could today be a much more massive once. (there is nothing, just our galaxies were formed by a cloud of mass heading that direction hence we all are going there). Since faster matter have traveled further so galaxies closer to the imaginary dark black hole have higher velocity. Even though their velocity stays the same we can't measure it since we have been measuring ot for very short time. And doppler effect measures only relative velocity not acceleration.
Is such scenario more likely?

>> No.2835525

>>2835500
The universe isn't expanding from a point, if you could travel through the universe at faster than the speed of light whilst looking at the background radiation it would be like you're always at the center of a sphere. No one knows what caused the initial fluctuations at the start of the big bang.

>> No.2835630

>>2835525
I know probably I should've describe it in a better way. Could it be an equivalent of a local "turbulence like" effect rather than global. Since I guess the matter in the universe didn't expand homogeneously in all directions in the early beginning but was interacting with each other. From the point of view of any arbitrary point or did it? Or if early electro-magnetic currents-fields didn't cause a large scale turbulences e.g. in a similar manner like with magnetar - though q bit unlikely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar? But on a larger scale and probably with large numbers rather than large magnetars since they would've probably just collapse into black holes.

Is there any proper explanation to the anomaly since it appears that the steady movement exists? - Is there any other explanation than the dark flow theory (which just says there is a HUGE heavy suspiciously invisible something)?

>> No.2835642

>star is as big as the galactic core
This is the only part that can't happen in our universe.
Star so big would become a black hole.

>> No.2835682

Couldn't a solar system be as big as ours if it was filled with dark matter?