Question

In: Physics

Q: Generally speaking astronomers don’t know the distances to objects they are studying. So, for example,...

Q: Generally speaking astronomers don’t know the distances to objects they are studying. So, for example, in a binary star system, we measure the angular separation between the two stars vs. time leading to an orbit measured in angular units instead of in length units. If we knew the system’s distance (i.e., parallax), then we could convert the angles and know the actual size of the orbit in kilometers or AU.

Rewrite the form of Kepler’s Third law using a parallax angle (p) and semi-major axis (a; in arcsec).

Use your equation to calculate the total mass (Mtot) of the following binary star system.

Measurements of the binary star:

period (P) = 25 years

angular semi-major axis (a) = 0.67 arcsec

parallax angle (p) = 0.050 arcsec

Thanks so much for the help!

Solutions

Expert Solution

Solution :

Kepler's Third law for planetary motion states that, " The square of the orbital period, P of a planet is proportional to the cube of semi-major axis, a of the planet's orbit."

Mathematically, it can be written as : P2 a3


where, M1 and M2 are masses of the binary stars. ( and M1 + M2 denotes the total mass of the system)

Please note that the masses (M1 and M2) are in terms of solar mass (), time period (P) is in years, and semi- major axis (a) is in astronomical units (A.U.)

Now, to convert semi-major axis to angular semi-major axis measured in arc seconds, we have,

where, a" = angular semi-major axis measured in arc seconds
and, p = parallax measured in arc seconds

Thus, Kepler's third law can be written as :


or, in order to find the masses. it can be simplified as -

TO FIND THE TOTAL MASS OF THE BINARY SYSTEM :

Period (P) = 25 years
Angular semi-major axis (a) = 0.67 arcsec
Parallax angle (p) = 0.050 arcsec

Thus, total mass of the binary system, (M1+M2) is :


Plugging in the values,



Therefore, the total mass of the system is


Related Solutions

Debt is generally cheaper then equity so why don’t companies finance themselves almost completely with debt?...
Debt is generally cheaper then equity so why don’t companies finance themselves almost completely with debt? How much debt is too much debt? Why would issuing additional debt bring a benefit to shareholders in terms of increased return on equity? Be sure to address all three points mentioned in this question.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT