Talk:LB-1

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 articles
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.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Created talk-page[edit]

Created the talk-page for the "LB-1" article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand[edit]

It looks like there may be a new twist on this story, with 3 new preprints simultaneously challenging the mass measurement reported in the Nature paper (preprints here, here, and here). Probably best to wait until these new papers are refereed before making major changes to the WP article, but this may require some revision in the future. Aldebarium (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have WP:TOOSOON and generally require multiple reliable sources to establish notability. I don't consider hundreds of websites repeating the same press release to be multiple reliable sources. The single primary source for this object's claim to notoriety is so full of assumptions it was almost inevitably going to be challenged, if not entirely debunked. The only surprise is that it is happening so quickly and strongly. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"surprise...quickly and strongly" Aeh, not really. Frankly, ignoring underlying variations one must know to be there is an error from the textbooks, easy to spot and obvious to everyone once mentioned. That it made it past 50+ coauthors and several referees is pretty much a low point in the publication history of Nature and speaks volumes of editorial quality problems. That said, the system is still most likely worth mentioning, since the wrong part is the high mass, probably not the presence of an actual black hole itself, since that relies on other arguments. And in that it is still a remarkable source, not showing any sign of accretion and zero eccentricity. 190.44.187.28 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such comments about the authors, Nature, and their referees are way out of line. Pretty much all calculations about astrophysical systems rely on pretty strong simplifying assumptions, and it's only when a result seems absurd that others jump in on the simplifications. 73.81.116.118 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge if this turns out to be true? If that’s the case this doesn’t have anything special related to it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this turns out to be a stellar-mass black hole with mass in the normal range, it would still be an interesting and notable object as a Galactic black hole discovered via the radial velocity variations of its binary companion star. But then the description of the mass measurement would have to be revised. At this stage, since this object and the controversy regarding its mass has attracted some attention, it could be useful for the article to note that the mass measurement has been challenged by 3 groups who argued that there were errors in the analysis presented in the Nature paper. But again it's probably best to wait for those papers to be refereed and published in final form before using them as reliable sources per WP:RS. Aldebarium (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to check the dates, but off the top of my head I believe that 2MASS J05215658+4359220 was discovered by this method before LB-1, which would make another inaccuracy in this article which needs to be fixed. Sonicology (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Star-LB-1-WikiSky-20191202.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's a triple star system[edit]

The claims and counterclaims regarding LB-1 are, according to Rivinius et al^[1], rendered moot by considering the system as a triple star system. This is the paper that has attracted so much attention recently regarding HR 6819. Their conclusion is that the black hole in LB-1 has a very believable mass, around 6 or 7 solar masses. 73.81.116.118 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, [1] concludes the secondary is a Be star, not a compact object at all. Modest Genius ^talk 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that LB-1 is a triple. There is also no evidence that LB-1 contains a black hole, and a few independent studies suggest a Be + He star configuration. I do not have sufficient expertise in Wik-editing to edit the intro, can someone edit it accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B6C0:32A0:545D:6FC:BDF8:1B39 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rivinius, Th.; Baade, D.; Hadrava, P.; Heida, M.; Klement, R. (2020). "A naked-eye triple system with a nonaccreting black hole in the inner binary". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 637 (L3): 11. arXiv:2005.02541. Bibcode:2020A&A...637L...3R. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038020.

[Rivinius2020-1] Rivinius, Th.; Baade, D.; Hadrava, P.; Heida, M.; Klement, R. (2020). "A naked-eye triple system with a nonaccreting black hole in the inner binary". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 637 (L3): 11. arXiv:2005.02541. Bibcode:2020A&A...637L...3R. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038020.

[1]