Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T04:38:19.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the capture of interstellar matter by stars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

R. d'E. Atkinson
R. d'E. Atkinson
Affiliation:
The Royal ObservatoryGreenwich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The derivation given by Hoyle and Lyttleton for an accretion formula proposed by them is examined. A number of arguments against its validity are put forward, especially that on the one hand their capture radius depends on the theorem that if the velocity of certain masses of gas after collision is less than the velocity of escape at the point, they will not in fact escape, while on the other hand it is clear (and is now admitted) that the gas cannot in fact move with this velocity at all. It is also shown that since, ex hypothesi, the individual molecules will all, on the average, retain their hyperbolic velocities, there is not the compelling reason for their capture that there appeared to be in Hoyle and Lyttleton's argument, where only the mean radial velocity of the centre of gravity of the mass was considered. Further, it seems improbable that the temperature of the interstellar matter can be low enough for the initial assumptions of their theory to hold.

Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , July 1940 , pp. 314 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Philosophical Society 1940

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 35 (1939), 405 and 592.Google Scholar

† The question forms part of a wider discussion appearing in the Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 100 (May, 1940).Google Scholar

* Loc. cit. p. 409.

† Loc. cit. P. 597.

* Loc. cit. p. 411.

* Ant (x) (i.e. “antilogarithm of x”) is written here for 10x, in the same way as exp (x) is commonly written for e x. The notation was first proposed in Astrophysical J. 73 (1931), 292Google Scholar (see also Nature, 124 (1929), 94).Google Scholar

† Hoyle and Lyttleton, loc. cit. p. 412 or p. 598.

* Loc. cit. p. 598.

† These figures should be roughly halved if we assume that the hydrogen is all ionized. However, they should also be approximately doubled if there is, as there well may be, one Ca+ atom to every 40 of hydrogen.

* Loc. cit. p. 599.

* Internal constitution of the stars, p. 377.