Talk:Luhman 16

A news item involving Luhman 16 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 March 2013.

Wikipedia

Our sun from this system

Is the Sun the second brightest star in the sky (after Sirius) from this system? Fig (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the place where this system would be, Sirius is the brightest star, followed by Canopus, followed by Alpha Centauri A, then a number of other stars, and finally the Sun at 1.33m. The Alpha Centauri system is also the closest neighbor at 3.8 to 3.9 light years distance, followed by the Sun at 6.5 ly. Ambi Valent (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun has an absolute magnitude of 4.83, which is how bright it would appear at a distance of 32.6 light-years. At a distance of 6.5 light-years the Sun would be 32.6²/6.5², or 25.1 times brighter. This would make the Sun (log 25.1x2.512) "3.5 magnitude brighter", resulting it the Sun having an apparent magnitude of roughly 4.83-3.52 = 1.3. Regulus is magnitude 1.35 as seen from Earth. -- Kheider (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space motion

Is there anything known about the motion of the Luhman 16 in space? (Movement in the sky was in the article, but not the radial component) Ambi Valent (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Planet

A planet orbiting one of the two brown dwarfs composing this system has been tentatively identified. See http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1312.1303 for a paper titled: "Possible astrometric discovery of a substellar companion to the closest binary brown dwarf system WISE J104915.57-531906.1" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:8780:38B:129A:DDFF:FEB0:44D3 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter mass

What is the size of these brown dwarfs relative to the size of Jupiter? 13x? Kortoso (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are sourced estimated masses in the article: 0.04–0.05 M_☉ for A and 0.03–0.05 M_☉ for B. Because a solar mass is roughly a thousand Jupiter masses, this is some 40–50 and 30–50 Jupiter masses, respectively. --JorisvS (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article indicates 34 and 27 Jupiter masses, respectively. Has it been finalized which is more accurate -- the article text, table, or the source you reference? Identifying accuracy must be a challenge for the authors when the different source documentation (atronomical scientific papers) currently disagree in their interpretation of the newly discovered data. Tesseract501 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You realize this is a discussion from almost four years ago? In any case, 34 and 27 come from the newest research in a 2017 paper. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Had I understood that a source dated 2013 was obsolete, I would not have commented. I apologize if my ignorance was frustrating Since there was no notation in the talk page that the source was obsolete, it confused me. Then again, I am easily confused. Tesseract501 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A source is not necessarily obsolete just because it is from a few years ago; in this case, in this situation, it is a case of improved technology and a much greater range of observations which provides what should be more accurate data. Also, it is extremely unlikely that you'll ever see a notice on a talk page that any particular source is obsolete or outdated...folks simply change out citations as newer information becomes available. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy Between Text and Table

The article's text indicates an orbital period of 27 years, but the article's side table indicates ~45 years. I have noticed text-vs-table discrepancies for many Wikipedia articles, including astronomy subjects. It appears that the individuals responsible for updating the text may not be the same as those updating the associated tables. Is this something we need to bring up with Wikipedia proper so that a uniform procedure can be developed that ensures the text and table data remain in agreement whenever updates are made? When such discrepancies exist, the reader has no way of knowing which data element is the correct one. Tesseract501 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the infobox with the data from the 2017 paper. Please understand that no one is "responsible" or "assigned" for any particular part of the update process. People do it as they see something needs to be updated, and unfortunately this sometimes means a bit gets left out. But, if you see an error or obviously outdated data, please feel free to correct it! — Huntster (t @ c) 16:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why there are discrepancies. Not knowing which data element is correct (the text or the table) is the reason why it would have been irresponsible for me to change one or the other. Thank you for making the correction; you have greater skill than I do with finding the correct data from sources. Tesseract501 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Nestrs (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WISE 1049-5319 → Luhman 16 – The name Luhman 16 is being used more in news articles, e.g. the recent planet claims [1] and is also being used in the scientific literature, e.g. the body text of [2] and [3]. The Luhman 16 designation is also far more memorable than the WISE one, even when the latter is abbreviated. 77.57.43.11 (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support. I prefer a name and it seems that "Luhman 16" is increasingly used for this system. --JorisvS (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was already considering moving this to "Luhman 16". Nestrs (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCASTRO; the name Luhman 16 is used more, and is easier to remember. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Iron rainon Luhman 16B

[4], [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.62.221 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched both and see no mention of iron rain, or any kind of "precipitation". Just clouds and dust. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

individual masses

"In this work we present the full astrometric orbit and barycentric motion of Luhman 16 AB and the first precision measurements of the individual component masses. We draw upon archival observations spanning 31 years from the European Southern Observatory (ESO) Schmidt Telescope, the Deep Near-Infrared Survey of the Southern Sky (DENIS), public FORS2 data on the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and new astrometry from the Gemini South Multiconjugate Adaptive Optics System (GeMS). Finally, we include three radial velocity measurements of the two components from VLT/CRIRES, spanning one year. With this new data sampling a full period of the orbit, we use a Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm to fit a 16-parameter model incorporating mutual orbit and barycentric motion parameters and constrain the individual masses to be~27.9+1.1−1.0~MJ for the T dwarf and~34.2+1.3−1.1~MJ for the L dwarf."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02714 Agmartin (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity

It might be worth mentioning that it used to be closer to the Sun than Proxima Centauri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]