I came across this fact because I think that there are pulsars in the sun and pulsars have a rotation rate on the order of 1/2 - 1 millisecond. I remember Leonard Susskind mentioned a similar fact relating the number of stars to particle physics, but I forget which lecture it was from.
There are no pulsars in the Sun. A pulsar can only form from a star which is far more massive than the sun, which has evolved a core dominated by heavy element fusion byproducts up to Iron (the Sun's core has only fused Hydrogen into Helium), and which undergoes a supernova explosion. And most pulsars have rotation periods that are much greater than a millisecond: only the fraction of pulsars recycled in close binaries can attain periods close to a millisecond.
As for one number roughly equalling another, that's just coincidence.
Did you know that the number of stars in the cluster M12 is exactly the same as the number of hairs on the head of a certain woman in India? Are the two connected? No. Does this have any meaning? No. You can find such coincidences anywhere and everywhere; don't pay them any heed as they have no scientific implication.
Ray Butler I thought that most pulsars are accreting millisecond pulsars with magnetically confined mountains. (1) If you don't mind me asking, what is the average rotation period of a pulsar in the milky way galaxy?
Very Respectfully,
(1) https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503287.pdf
Since the length of the solar cycle is controlled only by conditions inside the Sun, which depend only on its mass, size, structure, temperature and brightness, and has absolutely nothing to do with any object outside the Sun (including not only any other star, but also any of the planets), any mathematical relationship between anything involving the Sun and any other object must be purely coincidental. So if the two numbers are more or less equal, it is only a coincidence, and has no meaning or significance, whatsoever.
- Badges
- Science topic