3 ms·
This is why I included this part of the quote: > Other evolutionary channels such as formation without a common envelope or via a hierarchical triple also seem
by spuz 3y ago
This is why I included this part of the quote:
> Other evolutionary channels such as formation without a common envelope or via a hierarchical triple also seem unlikely for similar reasons.
Maybe it's hard to say without getting into specifics but it seems that the paper has considered the "unusual circumstances" in your statement.
- raattgift 3y agoThe paper rests on the MNRAS published version of <https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833 https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833> (ref. [EBRQ+22] in the preprint at the top, cited at the end of the paragraph you quote upthread). [EBRQ+22] itself proposes a triple as a possibility: "The system's evolution may be better-explained in models in which the G star was initially a wide tertiary companion to a close binary containing two massive stars. In this case, interactions between the two stars could have prevented either one from expanding to become a red supergiant, such that the G star could have formed in an orbit similar to its current orbit (but somewhat tighter) and remained there ever since. High-precision RV follow-up offers the tantalizing possibility of testing this scenario." RV there is "radial velocity measurements". Moreover, the part you quote and in particular "Moreover, formation within a globular cluster is also improbable" does not touch on their reference's "... dynamical formation in an open cluster that has since dissolved is more plausible." Disruptions of open clusters are well known. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster#Eventual_fate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster#Eventual_fate>.