- #71
mfb
Mentor
- 37,194
- 14,034
I finally read the paper, and the comet explanation sounds too reasonable :(. Sure, the size of the dips is massive, but it agrees with all measurements. It is also the explanation with the least promising outlook. There is some chance to see more dips within 1-2 years or in a few decades, but the star could stay without further dips forever now if the orbit is eccentric enough. The infrared emission from the comet fragments is going down fast, so I don't know if other telescopes (in particular, JWST in 2018+) are still sensitive to it.
Is the source data for the measured intensity available somewhere? It would be interesting to compare possible matter distributions to the observed light curve.
@Last Exile: It is ruled out in the paper. In particular, the light curve does not fit to the rotation period.
Is the source data for the measured intensity available somewhere? It would be interesting to compare possible matter distributions to the observed light curve.
@Last Exile: It is ruled out in the paper. In particular, the light curve does not fit to the rotation period.
That does not make sense.jerromyjon said:What about if the "cloud" is being acted upon by a magnetic field which aligns all the orientation to cause the particles to interfere destructively at a narrow angle to our line of sight?
Or a complex orbit which only passes our line of sight every so many orbits? If there was a huge black companion (dead star) revolving with a bright partner (attracted hydrogen how ever many millions of years later) would we be able to see such a quick orbit? Is there any such cosmological model of such a thing? I'm way out of my league here.![]()