Re: Binary stars

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@HEP.ANL.GOV>]

Yes, of course, although I would call it cylindrical symmetry, since we're
dealing with a 3-dimensional object.  But I would not liken the dumbell
shape to a circle.
        Ludwik's circle is at a distance r from the origin and has
a velocity vector that is confined to a plane.  The L=1 orbit hasa
substantial part of its volume lying inside of a sphere with radius
equal to its "classical radius".
                        Regards,
                                Jack

Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
not up.
                          Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>

On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Leigh Palmer wrote:

> I don't understand. I know the dumbbell shape of the L=1 orbital,
> which I suppose you are calling a dipole here, but it still has
> circular symmetry, hasn't it?
>
> Leigh
>
> > l=1 is a dipole.  But I mis-spoke, of course; l= 0 is spherical, not
> > circular.  I stand by the rest.
> >                                Regards,
> >                                        Jack
> >
> > Adam was by constitution and proclivity a scientist; I was the same, and
> > we loved to call ourselves by that great name...Our first memorable
> > scientific discovery was the law that water and like fluids run downhill,
> > not up.
> >                          Mark Twain, <Extract from Eve's Autobiography>
> >
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Leigh Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > >        But angular momentum 1 is not a circular orbit it any
> > > > sense of the word.  The nearest we get to a circular orbit is
> > > > a very high n s-wave.
> > >
> > > Well, an L=1 "orbit" has circular symmetry. That is, the azimuthal
> > > coordinate is ignorable. Do you mean that the orbit is not spherical?
> > >
> > > Leigh