Distance tension with absorption-based estimates
The argument
Because Gaia parallax places the star at about 2.5 kiloparsecs, while comparison of the X-ray absorption with CO and HI gas columns places the remnant at 3.2 kiloparsecs or beyond, a kinematic association with atomic gas puts the remnant at 5.2 to 6 kiloparsecs, and uniform-emission hydrogen atmosphere fits to the compact object imply distances above about 7 kiloparsecs, the star and the remnant would lie at different distances, making the star a foreground object seen in projection.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Gaia parallax places the optical star IRAS 17287-3443 at a distance of about 2.5 kiloparsecs
- InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →X-ray absorption compared with CO and HI gas columns places HESS J1731-347 at least 3.2 kiloparsecs away
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Uniform-emission hydrogen atmosphere models for the HESS J1731-347 compact object imply distances above about 7 kiloparsecs
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →HESS J1731-347 is associated with atomic gas at a kinematic distance of 5.2 to 6 kiloparsecs
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.
Earlier ratings
- Aug 6, 2026
The inference is valid: if the remnant lies beyond roughly 3 kiloparsecs while the star's parallax places it near 2.5 kiloparsecs, the star is a foreground object and the association fails. Its force comes from the independence of the three remnant-distance indicators, though each carries a caveat: the absorption-based lower limit is itself contested, since column material local to the source could relax it, the kinematic gas association could be a misidentification, and the hydrogen-atmosphere distance presupposes an atmosphere composition that is itself disputed. No single premise is decisive, but the argument does not need all three; it fails only if every indicator is wrong in the same direction.
- Jul 23, 2026
The inference is valid: if the remnant lies beyond roughly 3 kpc while the star's parallax places it near 2.5 kpc, the star is a foreground object and the association fails. Its force comes from the independence of the three remnant-distance indicators, though each carries a caveat: the absorption-based lower limit can be relaxed if part of the column is local to the source, as Doroshenko et al. 2022 propose, the kinematic gas association could be a misidentification, and the hydrogen-atmosphere distance presupposes an atmosphere composition that is itself disputed. No single premise is decisive, but the argument does not need all three; it fails only if every indicator is wrong in the same direction.