Talk:BAT99-98

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the BAT99-98 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy 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.
	An appropriate image needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. Once this has been done, please remove the `\|needs-image=yes` parameter from this template.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The mass of BAT99-98[edit]

BAT99-98 was at 226 solar mass in 2011. However, this reference “The Wolf–Rayet stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud” shows that the error margin of this quantity is large, since it is calculated from the luminosity and the surface element abundance, which are in turn affected by considerable uncertainties. On the other hand, compared with R136a1, which is also a Wolf-Rayet star, BAT99-98 is lower in luminosity and effective temperature. According to the mass-luminosity relation and effective temperature, BAT99-98 will not be more massive than R136a1.

The following is a specific method description.

In the reference "Bonnsai: a Bayesian tool for comparing stars with stellar evolution models", it is mentioned that BONNSAI can be used to calculate some stellar related parameters.

BONNSAI is a Bayesian tool to calculate the probability distributions of fundamental stellar parameters for a given set of observed stellar parameters including their uncertainties. It also provides predictions of unobserved quantities and tests stellar evolutionary models. BONNSAI also has a model dedicated to the star in Large Magellanic Cloud.

The basic parameter of BAT99-98 is derived from the reference "A spectroscopic survey of WNL stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud:general properties and binary status"

When the parameters (including but not limited to the luminosity, effective temperature, radius, surface gravity and helium abundances) are input in the BONNSAI website, the mass will output to your e-mail a few days later. --Hd93129 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly satisfies WP:RELIABLE. Even if it were to be something that could be referenced, for example, a citation to the introduction paper, which observed parameters would you input? Who should decide that a set of input parameters is sufficiently independent and reliable that the output is meaningful? Unfortunately, this just isn't how Wikipedia justifies its content: demonstrable is considered to be more important than true. Lithopsian (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The parameters I entered are effective temperature, wind mass loss rate and hydrogen mass fraction at the surface. And another reference "The R136 star cluster dissected with Hubble Space Telescope/STIS. II. Physical properties of the most massive stars in R136" can prove that the star mass with over 70 solar mass can fit the BONNSAI. Since the massive stars have strong winds, these few parameters are enough to calculate the mass. The result is statistically significant, detailed results can be seen in the picture below. --Hd93129 (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Whether the result is scientifically valid or statistically significant is irrelevent. It isn't how Wikipedia works. You can give information that is stated relatively explicitly in reliable sources, but not (in most cases) use information from different sources to reach a conclusion not stated by either. You might wish to look at Shenar et al (2020) and Crowther referenced therein, for relevant comments about the mass, but I didn't find anything there that I could use as a number for the starbox. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you don’t believe my data, wait for me to publish the data in the astronomy journal, it will only take 18 months at most. --Hd93129 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a case of me not believing you, just a case of Wikipedia not regarding either of us as reliable enough sources for information like this. When it is in a peer-reviewed journal, I'll be delighted to update the article myself. Lithopsian (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]