View source for Talk:Alpha Centauri

{{talkheader}}
{{British English}}
{{afd-merged-from|Alpha Centauri Bc|Alpha Centauri Bc (2nd nomination)|1 May 2016}}
{{FailedGA|14:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)|topic=Science and Medicine|page=2}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes|importance=Top}}
}}

{{Annual readership|days=90}}
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Alpha Centauri|bot=ClueBot III|age=180}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=4320|archiveprefix=Talk:Alpha Centauri/Archive|numberstart=2|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=8|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Alpha Centauri/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2/glyph
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 07:43 August 11, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added [[Template:Oca]] -->

== Split request ==

This page is getting too long, so can someone fell free to split it up, by the following:
* [[Alpha Centauri/Nomenclature]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/Stellar system]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/Observation]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/Kinematics]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/Planetary system]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/View from this system]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/Other Names]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/Future exploration]]
* [[Alpha Centauri/Historical distance estimates]]

Thanks! --[[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:6180:6290:7D89:F761:BBA0:74D1|2600:1700:6180:6290:7D89:F761:BBA0:74D1]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:6180:6290:7D89:F761:BBA0:74D1|talk]]) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Similar to your request at [[Talk:Solar System]]. By the way, I removed your extraneous "Other" section header. [[User:Tarl_N.|<b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b>]] ([[User talk:Tarl N.#top|<span style="color:teal">discuss</span>]]) 04:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Long articles can easily be scrolled, there is no real reason to split it into smaller parts. [[User:Artem.G|Artem.G]] ([[User talk:Artem.G|talk]]) 06:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

== Proxima Centauri c & d ==

are these planets confirmed or not. i see them in lists like [[List of nearest exoplanets|list of closest exoplanets]] and [[list of multiplanetary systems]] as if they are confirmed and also in the aplha centauri & [[Proxima Centauri|proxima centauri]] articles. but in the pages themselves they are apparently "controversial" (''c'') and a candidate only (''d''). ''c'' is "not formally confirmed" but "existence is undisputed" according to this article but apparently there is one source disputing it in [[Proxima Centauri c|''c''<nowiki/>'s article]].

this is opposed to [[candidate 1]] which is just a candidate and pretty clearly defined as such everywhere through its absence from the above exoplanet lists and also it has a "?" marker in the [[Template:Alpha Centauri|alpha centauri template]].

i've tried looking in the talks sections of all the directly related articles; i found 2 discussions on [[Talk:Proxima Centauri|proxima centauri]] and [[Talk:Proxima Centauri c|proxima centauri c]], but they are all from 1+ year ago and thus cant incorporate the 2022 source disputing ''c'' (but both discussions say it's a candidate). ''d'' is conflictingly claimed to be confirmed and candidate on proxima centauri and [[Proxima Centauri d|its own article]] repsectively, both using the same sources to say different things

(it also doesn't help that idk how a planent would be "formally" confirmed...is it just 1 other group of scientists saying "yeh this checks out" or "i see the same pattern here"? or if "general consensus" is needed, what is the definition of that? or how mny independent investigations/confirmations are needed)

I'm probably misunderstanding something here so just wanted to make sure before doing any changes on multiple articles and that template.

[[User:Sbznpoe|Sbznpoe]] ([[User talk:Sbznpoe|talk]]) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
:Indeed, as you mention, Proxima c has [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022AJ....164...84A/abstract recently been disputed]. I would say that Proxima d is confirmed (and it's described as such in the same recent paper), but I wouldn't want to start another argument about a planet's confirmation status. It's always ''possible'' that further observations might cast doubt on it in the future, as happened with planet c. [[User:SevenSpheres|SevenSpheres]] ([[User talk:SevenSpheres|talk]]) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

== Chimera article ==

I think that this article is a chimera of trying to describe Alpha Centauri AB system and the whole Alpha Centauri system (with Proxima Centauri) as a whole. We should split off Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B into its own article, and only talk about the whole system with a summary of individual stars in this article. [[User:CactiStaccingCrane|CactiStaccingCrane]] ([[User talk:CactiStaccingCrane|talk]]) 06:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

== Second binary discovered? ==

Article currently says "{{tqi|Alpha Centauri was only the second binary star to be discovered, preceded by Acrux.}}" with a source. I have not checked the source but I have concerns that whatever the source says, it doesn't seem to be correct. [[Binary star]] and [[Mizar]] suggests Mizar was discovered first before even [[Acrux]]. If my read is correct, Mizar was discovered as a binary sometime earlier in the 17th century via telescope and it's undisputed this is Mizar rather than Mizar and Alcor. Of course, technically we now know Mizar is not a binary star since it has four compononents but nor is Acrux which has 6. If there is some reason why this is still argued to be correct e.g. because parts of Acrux could be called a binary but nothing of Mizar, IMO this needs clarification at least via footnote which would probably also explain why Alpha Centauri itself is counted. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
: Hmm yes, Mizar A and B were distinguished in 1617. This was only recently discovered in Galileo's notebooks. [https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/sacred-space-astronomy/strange-tales-galileo-proving-telescopic-evidence-earths-immobility-double-stars/ Further reading]. But [[double star]] cites that Battista Riccioli knew by 1650, before Acrux was known to be so. [[User:DAVilla|DAVilla]] ([[User talk:DAVilla|talk]]) 11:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

== Circled in red? ==

"Alpha Centauri AB (left) forms a triple star system with Proxima Centauri, circled in red."
I don't see anything circled. Similarly where the same photo is used on [[Proxima Centauri]]. Image is unchanged since 2016. [[User:DAVilla|DAVilla]] ([[User talk:DAVilla|talk]]) 11:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

:There is a circle. is just hard to see [[Special:Contributions/87.52.110.156|87.52.110.156]] ([[User talk:87.52.110.156|talk]]) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

== Proxima Centauri‘s circumstellar disk ==

Proxima Centauri has a Circumstellar disc

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855L...2M/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...850L...6A/abstract
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/proxima-centauris-dust-belt-hints-at-more-planets [[User:Fredeee335|Fredeee335]] ([[User talk:Fredeee335|talk]]) 22:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

:See [[Proxima Centauri#Planetary system]] where this is discussed. There most likely is not a disk according to the 2018 paper you linked. [[User:SevenSpheres|SevenSpheres]] ([[User talk:SevenSpheres|talk]]) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
::Oh ok [[User:Fredeee335|Fredeee335]] ([[User talk:Fredeee335|talk]]) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Star is a lone spheroid  ==

{{ping|PopePompus}} A binary system can't be a "star" by definition - it could only be apparent in observation as such. Stating star is furthering the error which science has corrected [[User:Onemillionthtree|Onemillionthtree]] ([[User talk:Onemillionthtree|talk]]) 15:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:It is very common usage to refer to a multiple star system as a star. For example, people routinely refer to Sirius as a star.  Most stars are part of a multiple star system, many stars are no doubt part of a multiple system even though that has not been discovered yet.  Some stars are close to another star in the sky (close in the angular sense) and it is not yet known whether the stars are part of a multiple system or merely coincidentally close to each other from our point of view.   In all these cases, the system as a whole is often referred to as a star.
:The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on constellations is "A constellation is an area on the celestial sphere in which a group of visible stars forms a perceived pattern ...". [[User:PopePompus|PopePompus]] ([[User talk:PopePompus|talk]]) 15:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::"It is very common usage to refer to a multiple star system as a star." - really that is different realities - and you are supporting that the erroneous position should prevail. It isn't a physics position to state "star" when the reality isn't - it is only convention which is just to state - a repeat error which no-one will correct. [[User:Onemillionthtree|Onemillionthtree]] ([[User talk:Onemillionthtree|talk]]) 16:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::Your understanding is a thing with flippers that thinks it can fly in a world of the Delphium real [[User:Onemillionthtree|Onemillionthtree]] ([[User talk:Onemillionthtree|talk]]) 17:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::It's not acceptable to tell other editors trying to help that you think they're stupid or unable to understand, no matter what metaphors you use to say it. You frankly need to change your attitude significantly, and start listening more sincerely to what other more experienced editors are volunteering their time trying to tell you. Many things are imperfect on here, but many things are the way they are for good reasons. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:Onemillionthtree|Onemillionthtree]] can I ask you a favor? When you are confused by why something is phrased the way it is on articles like these, could you first consider the likelihood that there is a good reason for it, and ask what you are missing, instead of assuming you are the first person to have noticed what would be very visible errors in important articles. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 16:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

== JWST observations ==

[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/add880 Preliminary results] of the search for planets with JWST; nothing detected yet, more complete results forthcoming. [[User:SevenSpheres|SevenSpheres]] ([[User talk:SevenSpheres|talk]]) 17:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)