Talk:Physics and Star Wars

Untitled section
Tatooine's twin stars

A NASA depiction of a theoretical viewpoint from Kepler-16b's orbit of its two suns. In the past, scientists thought that planets would be unlikely to form around binary stars. However, recent simulations indicate that planets are just as likely to form around binary star systems as single-star systems.[1] Of the 3457 exoplanets currently known, 146 actually orbit binary star systems (and 39 orbit multiple star systems with three or more stars). Specifically, they orbit what are known as "wide" binary star systems where the two stars are fairly far apart (several AU). Tatooine appears to be of the other type — a "close" binary, where the stars are very close, and the planets orbit their common center of mass.

The first observationally confirmed binary — Kepler-16b — is a close binary. Exoplanet researchers' simulations indicate that planets form frequently around close binaries, though gravitational effects from the dual star system tend to make them very difficult to find with current Doppler and transit methods of planetary searches.[1] In studies looking for dusty disks—where planet formation is likely—around binary stars, such disks were found in wide or narrow binaries, or those whose stars are more than 50 or less than 3 AU apart, respectively. Intermediate binaries, or those with between 3 and 50 AU between them, had no dusty disks.[2] In 2011 it was reported by The Guardian that NASA spacecraft Kepler had discovered a planet, named Kepler-16b, with twin suns as seen in the Star Wars films.[3]

Certified astrophysicist and Star Wars fan Jeanne Cavelos explains that scientists have been skeptical about the likelihood of binary star systems such as Tatooine since the gravity of one star may prevent planets from developing around the other. Two stars of different masses orbiting one another would cause gravity fields to shift, causing potential instabilities in the orbits of any planets in their system.[4]

Even planets in more stable orbits of a binary star system would suffer other kinds of problems according to her such as climatic problems. As an example, a planet in a binary star system orbiting the larger star would be drawn closer to its gravitational field, causing the planet to endure heat of great temperatures during this period. As the planet passes its larger star and reaches the orbit of its smaller star, the gravitational field of that star would give the planet more distance from it. The distance (perhaps along with the smaller solar projection of the star) would send the planet into extreme frigid temperatures.[4]

According to Cavelos, astronomers hypothesize at least two possible solutions to these problems exist and that even life supporting binary star systems could exist. One scenario could be two stars billions of miles apart. A planet or planets would be able to orbit one star while at minimum influence of the other. A star known as Proxima Centauri, or Alpha Centauri C, is about one trillion miles away from its sister stars, Alpha Centauri A and B. Also according to Cavelos, astronomers believe that Proxima Centauri could have planets of its own, and if so, would be minimally influenced by Proxima Centauri's sister stars due to the vast distance between them and these sister stars. Assuming the existence of planets around Proxima Centauri, the sister stars from these planets would appear as bright stars in the sky.[4]

Another scenario would be two stars that would be closer to one another at a distance of only a few million miles. A planet orbiting far enough away would be affected by their gravitational fields almost as if there were one. If the distance between the two stars was a small fraction of the distance between them and the planet, it would be stable for the planet. Dawn and dusk would occur on such a planet as they would on Tatooine.[4]

Request to leave current sections
To inform other users here, I am currently working on this page. Please do not blank out these sections and replace them. If you wish to create new sections and their own sub topics, that's fine, but don't remove or scramble the stuff here please. The previous version of the article was WP:CLUTTER.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To inform other users, I am currently reading The Science of Star Wars for additional citations. All the sections aren't unsourced material that need to be removed, I just need to cite them and I am using that book for it, but it will take a number of days, so please be patient.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@ and others - FWIW - attempted to improve the article - my efforts are presented HERE - seems a new effort to improve the article is now being attempted - if this newer effort is unsucessful for some reason, restoring my earlier effort is *entirely* ok with me - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested correction in the section that describes the force exerted by clashing light sabers: "the force felt in the hilt of each lightsabers is approximately 10 N (or roughly equivalent to the force exerted by a one kilogram object falling on your foot)". This should be changed to "the force exerted by a one kilogram object resting on your foot". A falling 1kg object would carry kinetic energy proportional to the square of its speed, and thus would apply a much greater force, which would also depend on the rigidity of its surface. This is why you swing a hammer instead of just placing it atop the nail. It is best to leave movement out of the analogy to avoid running into these pitfalls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.75.97 (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Useful links?
I'll leave them here so we have time to consider using it --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another one --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)