4 ms·
In the abstract, it says that they conclude this from the absent of "quiescent excess emission". I do not know what this exactly means, could not find an explai
by fjfaase 9y ago
In the abstract, it says that they conclude this from the absent of "quiescent excess emission". I do not know what this exactly means, could not find an explaination for it, but maybe it is a technical term for "light echo" or something related to it. If a star suddenly becomes 1000x brighter, one would expect that after some time, planets and dust would also light up after the star has returned to normal brightness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_echo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_echo
- kwoff 9y agoThe web page links to a journal article that you have to pay for, but you can find the freely-readable version of the full article at https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08257 https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08257 . Section 4.2 discusses dust emission. The original paper they're correcting is at https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00578 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.00578 (section 3.2). This paper concludes that the previous paper had wrong assumptions because a flare happened during their measurement, so they didn't need to hypothesize that there is a dust belt (at least the 2 inner ones; they didn't have info about the far outer belt) to account for the supposed "excess emission".