Talk:Thorne–Żytkow object

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agomezbuckley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I removed the section listing three methods of formation because

I couldn't understand it. It consisted mainly of abbreviations and sentence fragments. I can read the Astrophysical Journal easily, so if it's over my head it's over anybody's head.
As far as I could tell, the first and second methods of formation were the same -- binary engulfment.

I split the two methods of formation described in the main text more clearly and added and clarified a few points. If the original author of the "three methods of formation" section would care to explain the third method, I'd be glad to assist in getting it into the article. --User talk:CarlFeynman — Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 7 October 2006‎ (UTC)[reply]

candidate or confirmed

There was a meeting on "Exploration of Thorne-Zytkow Objects" held at the American Astronomical Society 238 this week; invited speakers included Kip Thorne and Anna Zytkow. I was also privledged to be one of the invited speakers, and was one of the team members involved in the identification of HV 2112 as a TZO candidate. I think it's fair to say that none of us are sure that TZOs even exist---theoretically they should!---but theory isn't quite good enough to allow us to unambiguously separate TZOs from super-bright AGB stars (which are not expected to exist, but might). The consensus was that HV 2112 remains the most viable candidate but we have several other objects that we plan to study which also appear to be possible candidates. For now, "candidate" is a fair description.----MassiveStarGuy

The paper referred to for HV 2112 is named "Discovery of a Thorne-Zytkow object candidate in the Small Magellanic Cloud" (emphasis added), so should this entry really be in the "confirmed" rather than in the "candidates" table? -- Theoprakt (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good candidate but not confirmed, particularly since there appear to be abundance anomalies that are not predicted by theoretical models of TŻOs. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WT:ASTRO: Wjfox2005 just updated the article to say that HV 2112 has been confirmed as a TZO (and I subsequently updated the table to show that) but from my reading of the press releases, this is a candidate, and not confirmed. The discovery paper [1] was just published. The press release [2] certainly doesn't seem to make this "confirmed". Is this a confirmed discovery, or just a discovery that is yet to be confirmed? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArXiv 2023/05 paper

A new paper was recently published on ArXiv with different (to whom? I'm not sure) predictions for a TŻO's spectroscopy (more 44-Ti oxides, less heavy nuclei), and consequences for the observational astronomers and what they report/ argue.

It's probably too close to the "bleeding edge" for going into the page itself, but worth noting for those who follow the topic. Link : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.07337.pdf ; it's cited to come out in MNRAS, so when that comes out someone (not me - thrice bitten; always shy) will need to make up a REF for it. Make of it what you will. AKarley (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

halo star?

The article mentions a "foreground halo star" but didn't explain what that is or link to an article that explains. I was unable a relevant article for "halo star". Can somebody provide more information?

— SkyLined (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Galactic halo. There was a reference to that suggestion (O'Grady 2020) that pointed to Gaia DR2 proper motion being inconsistent with SMC proper motion. In Gaia DR3 the proper motion is consistent, hence, I removed suggestion of foreground location of that star. Rpoleski (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]