Talk:HD 100546

Significant confusion over HD 100546 b (11/4/2014)

The article includes a section on HD 100546 b, a young planetary companion found orbiting HD 100546. This is a very confusing issue: there are at least *two* companions that have been identified around HD 100546. The first is one inferred from spectroscopy, orbiting at roughly 10 AU from the star. The second is the object first identified by Quanz et al. (2013; arxiv:1302.7122) and now recovered by Currie et al. (2014; arxiv:1411.0315). The latter has been explicitly referred to as "HD 100546 b", whereas the former is just a candidate planetary companion (with no known) inferred to exist. Currie et al. (2014) also propose a 3rd companion that may explain a spiral arm-like feature they see. There are many other spiral arms in the disk that may be signs of additional planets.

Unless there is strong objection, I propose relabeling the ``HD 100546 b" as "The HD 100546 Planetary System", discuss both HD 100546 b and the unlabeled second object ('c'?), briefly note that there may be more, and split off a detailed discussion of HD 100546 b into a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.73.73 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Water ice

The detection of water ice in this star's protoplanetary disk has been in the news lately. Google Scholar has some reserch papers on the subject. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced period and confusion between various detections

To begin with, I've removed a clearly incorrect period entry of 6 days from the table for planet "b". This was perhaps a value that should have been in years, but I could find no source for it. Determining the period from a (projected) separation is not a trivial problem, and calculating a value would require quite a bit of original research.

On looking at the table more closely, I've really struggled to piece together what the article considers "b" and "c" to be. In the entry for "b", the separation of 6.5au and mass of 20 MJ correspond to the Acke and van den Ancker 2006 claim of a planet, but the radius of 6.9 RJ almost certainly corresponds to the entirely separate directly imaged planet of Quanz et al. 2013, 2015, etc., which is sat out beyond 40au on the opposite side of the star. The entry for "c" quotes a separation of 13au, which closest matches the hypothetical (but unobserved) planet of Mulders et al. 2013, but their conclusions suggest a separation of "between 8 and 10 AU", rather than ever claiming 13au.

Does someone have a grand plan/overview for how the article should fit together? --Danny252 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HD 100546. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305033316/http://www.sciencecodex.com/the_birth_of_a_giant_planet-107687 to http://www.sciencecodex.com/the_birth_of_a_giant_planet-107687

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculously large mass: 752 Jupiters?

This NASA site: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/exoplanet-catalog/6713/hd-100546-b/. is listing a ridiculously large mass for HD 100546 b. It says it is 752 Jupiters. I thought such a large mass would invariably undergo fusion and become a star. What is going on here? Algr (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)