This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I'm curious what others think of using the definitions from The Second Annual Lowell Observatory Fall Workshop for this page. These are:
Pfhreak ( talk) 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you take a look at Meléndez, and Ramírez (2007), then really no star known satisfies the criteria of being a solar twin.— RJH ( talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth do we include the Sun with Sunlike stars? You'd think this would be tautologically obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.90.66 ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've made a new template {{ CelestialRefAll}} and I thought it's about time to use it in some main space articles to see if that turns up anything.
So have tried it here first. Interested in any thoughts about it. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 11:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I think it might be an idea to say a bit more about why solar twins and analogues are so interesting.
I wrote a section about it here in the article for HD 133600 using material from a 2007 paper by Jorge Melendez and Ivan Ramırez which has a good introduction that goes into it in some depth, why they are useful. [1].
I'm sure there is a lot more that can be said. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Article text as of July 17, 2016: "To date no solar twin with an exact match as that of the Sun has been found, however, there are some stars that come very close to being identical to that of the Sun, and are such considered solar twins by the majority of the public. An exact solar twin would be a G2V star with a 5,778K temperature, be 4.6 billion years old, with the correct metallicity and a 0.1% solar luminosity variation"
The above odd wording is correct. No exact match of the Sun has been found after about about 2.5 million stars have been studied and logged. Thus, the word twin has been redefined. "twin" is normally defined as "resembling each other", "being identical". As no other G2V star with a 5,778K temperature, 4.6 billion years old, with the correct metallicity (Z = 0.0122) and a low 0.1% solar luminosity variation (over a 11 year span), has been found; the word "twin" has been redefined to a much wider definition, more like the word "vaguely close". Telecine Guy 01:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This might be useful: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1337/ Oldest solar twin out there that found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterooch ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Most of the stars shown in the table for 'Solar Twins' fail to meet the criteria listed above the table so should not be in there.
I beleive only HD 143436 and HD 101364 meet the criteria in all respects. All the values with a buff backgrond result in failing the criteria. I presume the buff are edits but it is not explained on the page or as far as I could see in the history.
Should all the failing stars be moved to Solar Analogues or should the criteria be changed ?
John Murrell
86.174.193.152 ( talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Removed the following unsourced line from the table. Web searches show no results apart from mirrors of this page.
|- |style="text-align:left;"| Goromladen | | | 200 | G2V | 5,778 | 0.00 | 4.6 |
What definition are we using - a B-V value of 0.48 to 0.80, or 0.50 to 1.0? V538 Aurigae doesn't meet the former value (B-V of 0.84), so should be removed if that's what we're using; if it is the latter range, then Alpha Centauri B should also be added to the list. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I was amazed to discover that a friend of mine thinks that even though there are a lot of stars in the universe, our Sun is very unique and significantly different than all the rest of the stars. In times where flat Earthers are abound, I think this article should stress the point that our Sun is not unique and that there are literally millions of stars similar to it in the Milky Way, not to mention in the universe. It seems that this article kinda assumes that understanding and focuses on the differences rather on the fact that, although there's no "perfect match", the examples given in the table are in fact incredibly similar to our Sun יוני לבני ( talk) 01:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
No mention of HD 162826, which is — as far as I know — the only widely accepted solar sibling. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 22:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
In the tables in this article, numerous cells have a light orange background color but there is no apparent legend in any of these tables as to why these cells have that background color. Below each table, there should be a note indicating what the orange color means. Vincent Ree ( talk) 00:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Why isn't the metallicity of Alpha Centauri B listed on the chart? 174.103.211.189 ( talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I'm curious what others think of using the definitions from The Second Annual Lowell Observatory Fall Workshop for this page. These are:
Pfhreak ( talk) 02:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you take a look at Meléndez, and Ramírez (2007), then really no star known satisfies the criteria of being a solar twin.— RJH ( talk) 19:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Why on earth do we include the Sun with Sunlike stars? You'd think this would be tautologically obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.90.66 ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've made a new template {{ CelestialRefAll}} and I thought it's about time to use it in some main space articles to see if that turns up anything.
So have tried it here first. Interested in any thoughts about it. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 11:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I think it might be an idea to say a bit more about why solar twins and analogues are so interesting.
I wrote a section about it here in the article for HD 133600 using material from a 2007 paper by Jorge Melendez and Ivan Ramırez which has a good introduction that goes into it in some depth, why they are useful. [1].
I'm sure there is a lot more that can be said. Robert Walker ( talk) 11:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Article text as of July 17, 2016: "To date no solar twin with an exact match as that of the Sun has been found, however, there are some stars that come very close to being identical to that of the Sun, and are such considered solar twins by the majority of the public. An exact solar twin would be a G2V star with a 5,778K temperature, be 4.6 billion years old, with the correct metallicity and a 0.1% solar luminosity variation"
The above odd wording is correct. No exact match of the Sun has been found after about about 2.5 million stars have been studied and logged. Thus, the word twin has been redefined. "twin" is normally defined as "resembling each other", "being identical". As no other G2V star with a 5,778K temperature, 4.6 billion years old, with the correct metallicity (Z = 0.0122) and a low 0.1% solar luminosity variation (over a 11 year span), has been found; the word "twin" has been redefined to a much wider definition, more like the word "vaguely close". Telecine Guy 01:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This might be useful: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1337/ Oldest solar twin out there that found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterooch ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Most of the stars shown in the table for 'Solar Twins' fail to meet the criteria listed above the table so should not be in there.
I beleive only HD 143436 and HD 101364 meet the criteria in all respects. All the values with a buff backgrond result in failing the criteria. I presume the buff are edits but it is not explained on the page or as far as I could see in the history.
Should all the failing stars be moved to Solar Analogues or should the criteria be changed ?
John Murrell
86.174.193.152 ( talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Removed the following unsourced line from the table. Web searches show no results apart from mirrors of this page.
|- |style="text-align:left;"| Goromladen | | | 200 | G2V | 5,778 | 0.00 | 4.6 |
What definition are we using - a B-V value of 0.48 to 0.80, or 0.50 to 1.0? V538 Aurigae doesn't meet the former value (B-V of 0.84), so should be removed if that's what we're using; if it is the latter range, then Alpha Centauri B should also be added to the list. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 00:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I was amazed to discover that a friend of mine thinks that even though there are a lot of stars in the universe, our Sun is very unique and significantly different than all the rest of the stars. In times where flat Earthers are abound, I think this article should stress the point that our Sun is not unique and that there are literally millions of stars similar to it in the Milky Way, not to mention in the universe. It seems that this article kinda assumes that understanding and focuses on the differences rather on the fact that, although there's no "perfect match", the examples given in the table are in fact incredibly similar to our Sun יוני לבני ( talk) 01:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
No mention of HD 162826, which is — as far as I know — the only widely accepted solar sibling. — al-Shimoni ( talk) 22:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
In the tables in this article, numerous cells have a light orange background color but there is no apparent legend in any of these tables as to why these cells have that background color. Below each table, there should be a note indicating what the orange color means. Vincent Ree ( talk) 00:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Why isn't the metallicity of Alpha Centauri B listed on the chart? 174.103.211.189 ( talk) 01:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)