
How Raganwald Lost His Crown - braythwayt
http://braythwayt.com/2017/12/29/crown.html
======
pjdorrell
Binaries almost never form from stars “wandering” and “encountering” other
stars. Current scientific understanding is that almost all stars are formed as
binaries in the first place.

~~~
braythwayt
Thank you!

[https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/113f94686...](https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/113f94686d94d8ff1dc1978c7a6b20ded19397de)

From Wikipedia: _While it is not impossible that some binaries might be
created through gravitational capture between two single stars, given the very
low likelihood of such an event (three objects are actually required, as
conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another)
and the high number of binaries, this cannot be the primary formation process.
Also, the observation of binaries consisting of pre main-sequence stars,
supports the theory that binaries are already formed during star formation.
Fragmentation of the molecular cloud during the formation of protostars is an
acceptable explanation for the formation of a binary or multiple star system._

------
dredmorbius
Thought: Isaac Newton was an alchemist. He was looking for the secret, most
especially, of transmuting base elements into gold.

Instead, he discovered the law of gravity.

Which, as expressed in neutron star formation and collisions, is what
transmutes base elements into gold.

Score one for the alchemists.

------
braythwayt
Disclosure: A rare self-post. I'd be very grateful for any and all corrections
to the story, as I am far from an expert is astrophysics, geology, or pretty-
much anything else.

~~~
pstuart
Small typo: "Neutron stars to not hang, fixed in space"

I'm guessing that it should be "do not"

~~~
szafranek
Probably another typo: "planet our side" -> "planet our size"?

Also, this is a beautiful piece of writing! I love it.

~~~
braythwayt
[https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/981362fad...](https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/981362fad28c8b664d2e07ca6d2bf58ab53dd374)

Thank you or sharing your appreciation. I will treasure that.

------
crimsonalucard
> Hark to the lesson of this story: Everything has an explanation.

Great writing. But the lesson is wrong. It has been proven that certain things
which are true can never have an explanation: Godels incompleteness theorem.

[https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompletenes...](https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems)

~~~
braythwayt
I do not think Incompleteness speaks to the question of whether things that
happen in our Universe have explanations. It speaks to formal mathematical
systems that have a property of self-reference.

If we are to debate whether the conclusion of my parable is true, I would tend
more towards considering the possibility that many things in our Universe may
simply be axiomatic, there is no explanation for them, they just are.
Uncertainty may be one of those things.

Another line of investigation would be to consider whether some things do have
explanations, but we have missed the opportunity to gather the evidence to
understand them, therefore we will never understand them. Likewise, the
Universe is finite, it will die, and we may never discover all of the
explanations.

If something has an explanation, but there is no way for us to discover it, in
what sense does it have an explanation?

~~~
crimsonalucard
The incompleteness theorem does not only apply to mathematical systems. It
applies to all formal systems in the realm of logic. If we assume that all of
reality can be reduced to a formal logical system then the incompleteness
theorems apply. Thus even non-axiomatic concepts may be unexplainable.

However, you bring up a good point. Explanations rely on evidence and evidence
must be observed. Additionally, the tools which we employ to observe evidence
are imperfect. What does this mean?

It means in the world of logic only some things can't be proven, but in the
world of science (aka reality as we know it): Nothing can be proven. Nothing
can be fully explained because additional evidence can always be observed in a
later point in time that disproves an explanation. As Einstein once said:

"The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely
experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never
says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in
the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory
it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No."
Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon
after conception."

or Karl Popper who put the concept simply:

"...no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this
does not explain the conclusion that all swans are white."

In short, no amount of evidence or explanation can justify any statement.

Interestingly though, it takes only one observed black swan to disprove a
statement. Hence the role of falsifiability in the scientific method.

------
totallymike
A proper shaggy dog story if I've ever read one! Entertaining and interesting
along the way, and the ending snuck up on me.

Thanks for a good read :)

------
saagarjha
> I might have lifted my Apple Watch and said “Hey Siri, record a note.” If I
> was using the Apple Neutron Star Edition Apple WatchOS, it would have had to
> correct for time dilation between time at my waist and time at my shoulder.

Would it, really? Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation using a formula
pulled from Wikipedia[1], and assuming:

1\. The Apple Watch needs to stay within 50 milliseconds as Apple advertises

2\. The neutron star is around two solar masses and has a radius of 10 km, and
isn't spinning faster than 1,000 times a second

3\. The distance between your waist and shoulder is about a meter

it should take a couple hundred seconds before Apple Watch drifts out of sync.
Should be long enough for Siri to record your note :)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Ou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-
rotating_sphere)

~~~
gumby
> should take a couple hundred seconds before Apple Watch drifts out of sync.
> Should be long enough for Siri to record your note :)

I wouldn’t be so sure. First of all, siri is pretty slow already in the best
of times. Second, the watch doesn’t do the recognition onboard; it sends the
audio (or some processed version, I don’t know) to your phone. And a neutron
Star, especially a spinning one with lots of junk around it, we be generation
an _ENORMOUS_ amount of RF interference. I can definitely see it getting out
of sync.

Then again it (and you) are not really rated for neutron sta4 conditions and
the tidal forces would definitely tear you apart; just moving your arm would
distort the watch, 7nless perhaps you purchased the extra expensive ceramic
version.

------
teh_klev
What a thoroughly enjoyable yarn which took me on a journey from the periodic
table, star formation, islands of stability and a good old Wikipedia vortex.

