From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects.
Click [show] for further details |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High |
This article is on a subject of high importance within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
|
|
[edit] Earth's fate
There's been a bit of back and forth about a recent result regarding the Earth's fate (in the Post-main sequence section). I'm loathe to accept a new paper (even in a journal) as fact, and I don't think the fate of the Earth or the exact maximum radius of the Sun as a red giant is at all settled.
However, is the fate of the Earth even worth including in this article? Mentioning the Sun as an example star is surely useful, but I'm not sure we need to include the Earth's fate (especially since it's also discussed in Sun, where I think it's more relevant). Ashill (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I agree. Discussion of the Earth's fate is probably superfluous here, or at least has an unnecessary level of detail. The Earth#Future section also covers the topic.—RJH (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done. Ashill (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Main Sequence Stars
I have noticed that in the article it says that Main Sequence Stars are also called dwarf stars, which is incorrect as only some stars in the main sequence are dwarf stars. For example, a Blue Giant is a Main Sequence Star.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.172.120 (talk • contribs)
- I believe that in this context the term "dwarf star" is used to describe a star that has a "normal" size for its mass. So a Blue Giant is also a dwarf star. It's an unfortunate term.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it could just be worded differently somehow, because I could also see confusion arising when dealing with a "white dwarf" star, where it could be perceived as part of the Main Sequence when it really isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.172.120 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- It doen't make any sense to me either, but any star in the main sequence is technically considered a dwarf. Why there are white dwarfs and black dwarfs too is incomprehensible to me. Sorry, but that's how it is. J.delanoygabsadds 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- See Stellar Classification#Yerkes spectral classification for the description of the so-called "luminosity classes". "Dwarf" means a star of luminosity class V (five), also known as a main sequence star. "White dwarf" is something else entirely, just to keep you confused. Like many terms in astronomy, it's a collection of historical artifacts because these things were all named before anyone knew what was going on physically, and the arcane names have stuck around. It's a shame, but that's the way the field is. "Black dwarf" is an uncommonly used term, largely because of the possibility for confusion with white dwarfs and dwarf stars. I'll try to clean up the language in this article to clarify things a bit, but it comes down to confusing, poorly chosen nomenclature that we all use. ASHill (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I changed dwarf star, which was a redirect to main sequence, to a page explaining the various uses of the term dwarf in the context of stars. ASHill (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- If the term causes confusion, then perhaps black dwarf ought to be merged with the white dwarf article.—RJH (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary; even though the term is not one I've often heard or ever used myself, the black dwarf page is very clear about what it means and it does have a somewhat distinct meaning from white dwarf. ASHill (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] reflist box
A user put the reflist in a box. I undid the revision because it makes it much harder to see read the references, particularly on a mobile device. ASHill (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
"...a star shines because thermonuclear fusion in its core releases energy that traverses the star's interior..." I question the use of "energy" cause it seems to mean that energy is a kind of "thing or object" by itself radiating from the core and it does not well explained why the star shines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiloa (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Chiloa (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)--Chiloa (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm unclear what the objection is; energy does traverse the star's interior and then radiate (travel) out into space in the form of electromagnetic radiation.
- The fusion releases energy; the release of that energy is shining. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply use "form of electromagnetic radiation" rather than "energy"?--Chiloa (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Some of the energy would be in the form of heat conduction, and convection, and non electromagnetic radiation, such as neutrinos. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
