Talk:S62 (star)

"Circles the fastest" a bit ambiguous, and incorrect in one interpretation

"Circles the fastest" could mean either "has the shortest orbital period" or "orbits with the highest maximum speed" or "orbits with the highest average speed". From the overall context it's pretty clear that the first meaning is intended here, but people who just skim the text could misunderstand. This is mostly nit-picking, but it matters because S62 is actually not the star with the highest average orbital speed - that is still S55 because the high ellipticity of S62's orbit makes its orbital circumference short enough to compensate for the shorter orbital period. The mean speed of S55 is 0.58% c while it's 0.50% c for S62 Amaurea (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relativistic Speed Notation

S62's fastest speed is 8% of c, which I would understand to be 0.08c. However, the article calls it 0.8c. Does the convention for notating relativistic speeds put the decimal point one spot to the right like this? IRSpeshul (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRSpeshul (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes I also believe this is an error. The question is in what direction. I was assuming the speed was actually 80%. What is your source that the true figure is 8%? If that's the case then we need to revert my edit to the percentage value and modify the notation value to 0.08c, as you indicated. Msjacoby23 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources, the article abstract and the Phys.org article that references it, have competing numbers (0.10c and 0.08c, respectively). The Wiki article for Sgr. A* also says 0.07c when it discusses orbiting stars. IRSpeshul (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S62 not particularly fast after all

This recent article by the GRAVITY collaboration observed the star S62 to be an an inconsistent position compared to the prediction made in Peissker et al. 2020 (the article that originally claimed the very high periastron speed for S62). GRAVITY observed S62 to be moving linearly, with no detected acceleration, indicating that it is not as close to the black hole as it appears in projection. They then pointed their telescope at where the orbital prediction from Peissker said S62 should be, where they instead observed the star S29. They speculate that the Peissker et al. arrived at their extreme orbit due to mistaking some observations of S29 with S62, creating an inconsistent data set. This is discussed in section 5.1 and 5.2 in the paper I linked to. GRAVITY's results invalidate all the special properties of S62 discussed on this page, so it will need some rewriting (putting things in past tense, giving a short explanation of the invalidation). Aside from this article, S55_(star) and Sagittarius_A*_cluster need to be updated. Amaurea (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding issues

4.15±0.6 should be rounded as 4.15 +/- 0.6X, 4.2+/- 0.6 or 4.1+/-0.6. 88.25.111.78 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference says 4.15±0.6. Not great statistics, but who are we to say. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]