strange orbits?

[tommac]

Are there any models for planetary orbits around binary stars? For some of the planets that are close there would be some strange orbits right?

I am looking maybe for a sight that shows known strange orbits ( specifically around binary star systems ).

[cjameshuff]

Are there any models for planetary orbits around binary stars? For some of the planets that are close there would be some strange orbits right?

Not really. The possible orbits are pretty much circular/elliptical orbits far enough out from a pair of closely-orbiting suns to orbit both, circular/elliptical orbits close enough to one sun of a widely-separated pair to not be affected much by the other, and a circular orbit at a Lagrange point of the two orbiting suns. Other orbits are too unstable to last for long.

[tommac]

Not really. The possible orbits are pretty much circular/elliptical orbits far enough out from a pair of closely-orbiting suns to orbit both, circular/elliptical orbits close enough to one sun of a widely-separated pair to not be affected much by the other, and a circular orbit at a Lagrange point of the two orbiting suns. Other orbits are too unstable to last for long.

How about for a binary system that is spinning very fast? Or where a planet is of signifigant mass to create a great wobble to a star?

also what do you mean by "for long"

[LotusExcelle]

As an aside - could a Klemperer Rosette kind of setup work here?

[tommac]

BTW the endpoint of this set of questioning I have started is to determine if an electron "orbiting" a nucleus could mimic something from the macroscopic world.

I am trying to figure out that if space-time could appear and disappear based on energy then the strange "being in two places at the same time" aspect may be able to be reasoned.

The problem I have is the cloud. I guess if space time is blinking in and out then the true location of the electron would not be eliptical and depending on the arrangement and how much space is blinking out and in could appear cloudlike.

[galacsi]

Hi Tommac

I found this in Wikipedia :

Planets around binary stars
Science fiction has often featured planets of binary or ternary stars as a setting. In reality, some orbital ranges are impossible for dynamical reasons (the planet would be expelled from its orbit relatively quickly, being either ejected from the system altogether or transferred to a more inner or outer orbital range), whilst other orbits present serious challenges for eventual biospheres because of likely extreme variations in surface temperature during different parts of the orbit. Planets that orbit just one star in a binary pair are said to have "S-type" orbits, whereas those that orbit around both stars have "P-type" or "circumbinary" orbits. It is estimated that 50–60% of binary stars are capable of supporting habitable terrestrial planets within stable orbital ranges.[58]

Simulations have shown that the presence of a binary companion can actually improve the rate of planet formation within stable orbital zones by "stirring up" the protoplanetary disk, increasing the accretion rate of the protoplanets within.[58]

Detecting planets in multiple star systems introduces additional technical difficulties, which may be why they are only rarely found.[59] Examples include PSR B1620-26 b and Gamma Cephei.

[tommac]

Hi Tommac

I found this in Wikipedia :

Thanks!

OK so here is the follow up:

Would the speed of rotation of the binary star system effect the distance a planet of particular mass would rotate?


Lets say two stars are orbiting each other on a path where they will eventually collide. The stars orbit and start out slowly but as they get closer they orbit each other faster and faster. A large asteroid gets pulled into the gravitational field of this binary star system and begins to orbit them, does its orbital distance change as the two stars pull each other closer together?

[Swift]

BTW the endpoint of this set of questioning I have started is to determine if an electron "orbiting" a nucleus could mimic something from the macroscopic world.

I'm not sure I completely follow this, but generally, macroscopic systems, where gravity is the principle force, are not good models of quantum mechanical systems.

[tommac]

I'm not sure I completely follow this, but generally, macroscopic systems, where gravity is the principle force, are not good models of quantum mechanical systems.

Agreed. In any case I am looking and trying to see the differences. I want to understand things a bit better before I jump fully into the idea that there are 2 fully different realities one of the macro and on micro.

[mugaliens]

Agreed. In any case I am looking and trying to see the differences. I want to understand things a bit better before I jump fully into the idea that there are 2 fully different realities one of the macro and on micro.

Start wading through the following and you'll see rather quickly that electrons behind nothing like planets:

Orbit

Atomic orbital

Molecular orbital

Electron configuration

Instead, their statistical distribution behaves more like the pressure variations observed in the standing waves within a closed system.

If you want to get technical, you can read how functionals determine electron density, as described by density functional theory.

[captain swoop]

Well, I am guessing that tommac is thinking of the 'high school' model of an atom with the little electron balls orbiting the nucleus like little moons or planets.

[tommac]

I am not really saying that they behave like planets but maybe more like waves stuck in a graviational field with strange orbits because of complex core structure.

Start wading through the following and you'll see rather quickly that electrons behind nothing like planets:

Orbit

Atomic orbital

Molecular orbital

Electron configuration

Instead, their statistical distribution behaves more like the pressure variations observed in the standing waves within a closed system.

If you want to get technical, you can read how functionals determine electron density, as described by density functional theory.

[tommac]

Well, I am guessing that tommac is thinking of the 'high school' model of an atom with the little electron balls orbiting the nucleus like little moons or planets.

Hi S woop,

I have never seen that model before. I think it is a little before my time.

[captain swoop]

I suppose what I mean is the Bohr Model.

[frankuitaalst]

Tommac ,
If you're looking for really strange orbits of bodies around multiple stars you can google for "Figure 8" .
In this case 3 stars are chasing each other in a figure 8 pattern .
This link provides some animations and information
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/cgi-bi...m=1181200864/0

[grant hutchison]

Tommac ,
If you're looking for really strange orbits of bodies around multiple stars you can google for "Figure 8" .
In this case 3 stars are chasing each other in a figure 8 pattern .
This link provides some animations and information
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/cgi-bi...m=1181200864/0

The "discovery paper" for this (stable!) configuration is by Richard Montgomery: A new solution to the three-body problem (170kB pdf). It includes some rather lovely (but unstable) patterns for n>3, too.

Grant Hutchison

[frankuitaalst]

Thanks for the link Grant .
It was indeed Montgomery who "invented " this stable orbit .
Since then others proved that this figure 8 orbit is the only stable choreographic orbit .
Also Carles Simo spent much of CPU-time in the search of other stable orbits ; he found a lot of other interesting and weird orbits , which however turn out to be unstable .
Another researcher , Chen , additionally found many other sets of such "crazy" orbits .
Its worth to start some googling ...