Talk:Asteroseismology

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy High‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asteroseismology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Astroseismology[edit]

Should there be a mention of "astROseismology" and "astEROseismology" as beeing synonymous? There are many articles (on the web) using the spelling astroseismology.

What about a mention of how this field relates to classification of extrasolar plantes according to suitability for life criteria and so on.¨

Bj norge (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that just a misspelling though, or an actual alternate spelling? On wikipedia I found only one page using the 'astro' spelling (which I have now corrected), and a search of ADS shows that only about 78 papers use the 'astro' spelling, and a majority (47) of them are because somebody has misspelt the title of the journal 'Communications in Ast[e]roseismology'. We probably shouldn't bother to write about a simple misspelling.

You have a good point about the relationship with exoplanets - I'll write something on this later. --Neil (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Some websites use it but it might just be a misspelling. Any particular reason it was astero and not astro in the first place? It has the same etymology as far as I can tell. Bj norge (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'astroseismology' is a common misspelling, especially in the U.S. See this wonderfully erudite comment in defence of the correct spelling by Douglas Gough. Timb66 (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited to remove 'astroseismology' as an alternate spelling. It has been dismissed as incorrect ^[1] and is not used by practitioners. Timb66 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Obs...116..313G

P-Mode[edit]

Should there be a dis-ambiguation page for "p-mode"? I originally searched for this term with the intent of reading about asteroseismology, but instead was directed to a page on mathematics. Thanks Scottyaggie (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)scottyaggie[reply]

I think that might be quite good, but I'd suggest posting it to the talk page of the exisitng page which redirects from p-mode as they are more likely to object. --Neil (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed overhaul[edit]

I've been working on basically overhauling this article. The draft replacement is at User:Warrickball/Asteroseismology. I've tried to incorporate coherent existing material and I'll probably port the lengthy section on solar-like oscillations into that article, to better balance things. Comments and edits are welcome!

I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. I work in the field and would like to see the article make a leap well beyond start-class. Warrickball (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your overhaul is great! I added a tiny bit during the AAS Wikipedia Edit-a-thon in mid-June, but I'm thrilled you dove into a more comprehensive revision. Merrdiff (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical Background – missing details[edit]

In the section “Theoretical Background”, I spot two problems:

(1) In the equation for $N$ , the parameters $g$ and $\Gamma _{1}$ are not defined/explained.

(2) In the equation for the Lamb frequency, the quantity $r$ should not be the radial coordinate, but probably the star radius, let's call it $R$ . Otherwise, this would be a function of $r$ (which is not impossible, but the name “Lamb frequency” is then strange. —DieHenkels (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[apologies for using LaTeX notation conventions for equations]

(1) Here g stands for the (local) acceleration of gravity, so $g=GM(r)/r^2$, with $G$ the universal constant of gravity, $M(r)$ the mass enclosed within radius $r$, which is the distance to the stellar centre, so $g$ is still a function of the variable $r$. $\Gamma_1$

is the first adiabatic exponent. For an ideal mono-atomic gas, this would have a value of $5/3$, but for real plasmas it deviates from that value and still depends on local density and temperature.

(2) The Lamb frequency $S_{\ell}$, just as the bouyancy frequency $N$, is a locally defined quantity and therefore dependent on $r$. Both have the unit $s^{-1}$ and are therefore frequencies. The diagram indicates the value of each as a function of radius in a standard stellar model. Man.Invert (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Obs...116..313G

[1]