Talk:R136a1
Add topic | A news item involving R136a1 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 27 July 2010. |  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Most massive or one of the most massive?
[edit]this article says one of the most massive but if you click on most massive you'll see it is at the top of the list. So is it one of the most massive or is it the most massive? 173.33.191.183 (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Changed it to most massive ~2025-35368-96 (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
Luminosity diffrense
[edit]Just curios why does R136a1 has too low luminosity compared to the value got by luminosity equaliation (L=M^3). So i actually did 291^3 and got nearly 24.7 million Solar Luminosity. But the real luminosity is 7.2 million Solar Liminosity. I just want to know why i there wery big (nearly 3 times) diffrense and why the star is so dimmer than the value I got? ~2025-35823-89 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- That equation is only a good approximation in a certain mass range. Using the equation given on Wikipedia for stars over 55 solar masses (L = 32000 M), I get 9312000 solar luminosities, which is a much closer estimate. TariosGD1618 (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
Which mass uncertainty to use?
[edit]It looks like people keep switching between 291±46 and 291±34 for the mass estimate, and it's starting to look like an edit war in the making. Can we figure out which uncertainty we should be using for the mass estimate instead of repeatedly swapping between the two? TariosGD1618 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. I suspect many editors don't understand why there are two uncertainties shown in the paper. Lithopsian (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- That confusion could be resolved if the anon. editor provided a good reason rather than just saying that it is saying that the lower estimate is somehow 'more straight'. I advice that i am not an expert on statistics, and others opinions could be helpful if they point to a preferred error bar, with convincing reasons. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- The lower error (+-34) is better because it was find by the same method as the 291 solar mass finded making evolutionary models +-46 finded only by standart in errors and just probability density distributions. How researchers say. ~2025-39192-81 (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- After looking at the paper again I think I know what the two errors mean and what we should do. The larger uncertainty refers to uncertainty that results from the uncertainties in the known parameters (the ones used in the paper are I believe luminosity, effective tempurature, and surface helium fraction). The smaller uncertainty is the uncertainty that results from how non-mass properties of the model, specifically the star's initial rotation rate and how angular momentum is transported through the star, are unknown. I would probably try to include both somehow if possible, but if I had to choose one, I would do the larger one, the one based on uncertainty in the known parameters, as the one to show. TariosGD1618 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- Very tricky. The first value is a strict statistical margin of error from considering the values produced by the 20 models. The second value is effectively a mean of the margins of error of the input data to those models. This is something of an attempt to address a pervasive problem in astrophysics: margins of error are generally quoted that don't capture anything like all the potential sources of error, just a very narrow statistical result of certain calculations. Neither of the values alone really expresses the likely range of values, but there is no simple way to combine them. Certainly no way to combine them that could be done by Wikipedia; they should be effectively independent of eachother but just adding them together would be overly simplistic. Lithopsian (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Isn't it 10 models, not 20? TariosGD1618 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- I'd choose the higher estimate. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Very tricky. The first value is a strict statistical margin of error from considering the values produced by the 20 models. The second value is effectively a mean of the margins of error of the input data to those models. This is something of an attempt to address a pervasive problem in astrophysics: margins of error are generally quoted that don't capture anything like all the potential sources of error, just a very narrow statistical result of certain calculations. Neither of the values alone really expresses the likely range of values, but there is no simple way to combine them. Certainly no way to combine them that could be done by Wikipedia; they should be effectively independent of eachother but just adding them together would be overly simplistic. Lithopsian (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Evolution
[edit]interesting why do in evolution and Supernova parts we use wery old data there are 2 new 2025 datas (one of them is there we got 291 solar mass estimate) I think we should change theese to the newer research ~2025-39192-81 (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
- in wikipedia page about R136a1 there oftenly in the evolution and supernova cited 2013 year research it cant be actual right now (cuz) of 2 newer R136a1's evolution researches ~2025-39192-81 (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
Binary
[edit]Looks like R136a1 is a binary. https://www.eso.org/public/images/eso2519e/ ~2026-29928-41 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- The image blurb is not very informative. See the published details here. In short, R136a1 is not a binary. Lithopsian (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)