Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Aftermath of Distant Planetary Collision?

Posted by Zonk on Sat Jan 19, 2008 01:33 PM
from the two-plus-two-equals-weird dept.
Space Science
gazurtoid writes "Astrobiology Magazine is reporting that astronomers have announced a mystery object orbiting the 8-million-year-old brown dwarf 2M1207 170 light-years from Earth might have formed from the collision and merger of two protoplanets. The object, known as 2M1207B, has puzzled astronomers since its discovery because it seems to fall outside the spectrum of physical possibility. Its combination of temperature, luminosity, and age do not match up with any theory. 'Hot, post-collision planets might be a whole new class of objects we will see with the Giant Magellan Telescope', said Eric Mamajek of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Aftermath of Distant Planetary Collision? by gazurtoid (1220206)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Aftermath of Distant Planetary Collision? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Old Earth (Score:4, Informative)

    by usul294 (1163169) on Saturday January 19 2008, @01:41PM (#22110630)
    Maybe these planets are similar to Earth after the collision that resulted in the Moon. If so it would be incredibly useful for learning about the formation of the Earth and the Moon. as well as our geologic history.

    • Re:Old Earth (Score:5, Informative)

      by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Saturday January 19 2008, @01:50PM (#22110704) Homepage Journal
      Sounds like what they're talking about here is a gas giant formed by the collision of two smaller gas giants, so it wouldn't shed much light on the history of Earth and the Moon directly.

    • Re:Old Earth (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 19 2008, @03:27PM (#22111550)

      Earth after the collision that resulted in the Moon
      That hypothesis has been challenged.

      http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/origins/original-solar-system.asp [metaresearch.org]

      IMO, solar fission is a better theory than dust accretion, where "better" is defined as:

      1. Provides genuine insight.
      2. Does not contradict existing data.
      3. Makes predictions that, if falsified, would disprove the hypothesis.

      Short version: in order for a collision to produce a moon in a stable orbit, the impacting body must fall into a very narrow range of mass, velocity, and impact angles. This could have happened for one or two moons, but there are simply too many in the solar system to have all formed in this way. Furthermore, there is little evidence of all the failed attempts that must have also occurred. It is far more likely for candidate collisions to simply do damage, scatter some mass perhaps, or even shatter the unlucky planet.

      Solar fission hypothesizes that planets are a necessary consequence of stellar evolution, and moons are a necessary consequence of planetary formation. As they age, heavier elements build up in their cores, causing a spinup - like a figure skater tucking their arms in. At first the parent body would swell at its equator, due to gravity being partially cancelled by centripetal force. Eventually the surface velocity exceeds escape velocity, and a chunk of matter is thrown. Stars and gas giants would throw chunks in pairs, one from each side, whereas rocky planets such as Earth and Venus would only create one moon at a time, since the planet would spin down before the second chunk can breach the crust.

      Poke fun all you want. The physics are valid.

      Cheers.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by larry bagina (561269)
        Nobody claims that moons forming via collision is a common occurrence.
      • Hey...
        On Earth here we use fission to produce fusion (Thermonclear weapons - ask your mom)...

        But your pungent post suggests that our planetary overloads (perhaps Soviet) use fusion to produce fission!

        Well, I for one... aw, forget it!
      • Hmm ... how about 'doesn't require any new physics' as a criterion?

        I don't recall seeing any papers, containing actual equations, numbers, and stuff on this 'solar fission hypothesis'; do you know of any AC?

        It's not that rotational instability may lead to 'fission'; it's that such instability is relatively well-understood, and that no one, AFAIK, has published a plausible model ... that "[d]oes not contradict existing data".

        File this in the round file, alongside TVF's other wild ideas.

  • Species 2M1207B... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MacarooMac (1222684) on Saturday January 19 2008, @01:48PM (#22110688)
    Sounds like Borg Cube to me.

    Perhaps they'll get me the hell outa here. I start dual booting Vista and linux to hedge my compatibility bets.
  • I hope astronomy never goes the way of Egyptology and Archaeology in failing to address or acknowledge the existence of any anomaly. Or has it already?

  • OT, but... AstroBIOLOGY Magazine? (Score:5, Funny)

    by PornMaster (749461) on Saturday January 19 2008, @01:53PM (#22110726) Homepage
    Is Astrobiology Magazine slumming with the astrophysicists while waiting for someone to find life outside of Earth's biosphere?

    • Is Astrobiology Magazine slumming with the astrophysicists while waiting for someone to find life outside of Earth's biosphere?
      Nah... in fact, I think it was founded in Roswell some time ago by a very pale midget.
      • Hmmm, 2 "overrated" mods in a row, for posts that were not otherwise rated. Sounds like someone has modpoints and a grudge!
        • Or they thought your joke wasn't funny..

          • Or they thought your joke wasn't funny..

            They need to read the faq then. But you see, "overrated" doesn't get metamoderated, so I get sporadic bursts of un-metamoderable downmods lasting no more than 3 days and never exceeding 5 in a row.
            Considering that there are losers pathetic enough to stalk me here for years with their unrequited homosexual advances, it is not surprising that one or some of them would extend their petty obsession beyond the comment system and onto the moderation system.

              • You think people are stalking you?

                One guy is, he actually bragged about having been at it for one whole year when he'd been at it for about a year. Check out the comments in my journal, he posted shit in most of them and his username is a dead giveaway. But the end result of his obsessive actions are that his stalker account went from posting at 2 when he started it to posting at one (below my threshold, which means that I don't see his posts, making his stalking hilariously pointless), and my karma remained excellent. He bragged about usi

    • Hey, if it's Hot, Planet-on-Planet Action, who are you to complain?
    • Which raises the question, If you are growing bean sprouts on the ISS (FOR SCIENCE!!!) are you a biologist or an astrobiologist?
  • That playing pool with planets [wikipedia.org] is a perfectly good way to plug up a white hole.
  • ...170 years ago we sent out an accidental radio signal - 30 years before we discovered what radio was. Unfortunately those aliens had their own version of SETI (called TTFA - Trying To Find Aliens), which picked up the signal. Due to their recent invention of the internet and the subsequent panic over "proof" of alien life they panicked and sadly ended wiping themselves out in a nuclear war. The planet itself survives as a nuclear wasteground, still too hot to support life, but now noticeable by the very p

    • ...170 years ago we sent out an accidental radio signal - 30 years before we discovered what radio was. Unfortunately those aliens had their own version of SETI (called TTFA - Trying To Find Aliens), which picked up the signal. Due to their recent invention of the internet and the subsequent panic over "proof" of alien life they panicked and sadly ended wiping themselves out in a nuclear war. The planet itself survives as a nuclear wasteground, still too hot to support life, but now noticeable by the very p

  • Turn your cosmology filter off for a few moments people. Temporarily drop all of the assumptions about what you're seeing here, and consider carefully what you are seeing in the article's image. Look at the star, and notice the structure of the infrared filaments -- the star's corona -- coming off of it.

    It is a legitimate question to ask:

    Doesn't this star look like a ball of lightning?

    People may not be aware of the significance of this, but within the Plasma Universe perspective, planetary birthing is the

    • Doesn't this star look like a ball of lightning?

      Impossible to tell. Due to the image's low resolution I can't tell whether it's an a regular solar corona, a star sitting in a wispy gas cloud, a star sitting in a debris field, a star sitting behind a cloud/debris field, extremely large protuberances, giant lightning bolts... Heck, it could be a giant glowing amoeba.

      That image looks like it was about 30x30 pixels before scaling. With that kind of resolution being able to tell that it's a star is about as fa

      • Impossible to tell. Due to the image's low resolution I can't tell whether it's an a regular solar corona, a star sitting in a wispy gas cloud, a star sitting in a debris field, a star sitting behind a cloud/debris field, extremely large protuberances, giant lightning bolts... Heck, it could be a giant glowing amoeba.

        That image looks like it was about 30x30 pixels before scaling. With that kind of resolution being able to tell that it's a star is about as far as we get.

        It is a little bit hard to tell what i

        • I was about to ask for more info about this "Plasma Universe" model, but then, luckily, I scrolled down before I opened a Reply windows and erased all doubt.
          "Great thinkers have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

        • And I'd go one step further and even make the prediction that we will one day likely image in exquisite, undeniable detail a sequence of shots demonstrating that hot planets like this are in fact expelled from highly electrical stars like this one superficially appears to be.

          I think that it's best to wait until then, then. Or at least until we have data that gives us a bit more insight. I'm not an astrophysicist and my armchair speculations on how the universe works are going to be wildly inaccurate at best

          • Basing them on a very low-res image of something that looks like a cheap particle effect in a 3D game (at least at this resolution it does) is unlikely to provide any new insight.

            Were the information as sparse as you suggest here, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But what's happening is that there is an entirely new cosmology being constructed right before our eyes, and it works *very* well -- in fact, far better than the conventional theories are working. You wouldn't know it if you weren't paying

            • (my emphasis)

              What's happening is that every time that I try to educate people on Slashdot about what the Electric Universe states, people inevitably ridicule me.

              Hmm ... maybe if you paid more attention to what at least some of those who respond to your comments actually write you might get a more sympathetic hearing?

              For example, among the replies to your >400 comments are some which are very thoughtful, respectful, and detailed. The authors seem to have taken a great deal of trouble to understand what you wrote, and replied accordingly.

              Then there's the apparent disconnect between what you have written (and what folk can read for themselves, by fol

            • The Plasma Universe theory, perspective or point of view -- whatever you want to call it -- is real, very alive, relatively rich in detail and history, and supported by multiple unrelated disciplines. It is a true synthesis of all of the natural sciences, but what it concludes is that plasmas in space are being mathematically modeled incorrectly. And this is where people tend to turn off. In plasma-based cosmologies, plasmas are electrodynamic entities that, like in the lab, respond with electrical resistance and luminosity to changes in their charge density. In conventional cosmologies, astrophysicists *assume* that plasmas are "perfect conductors", they *assume* that space is "quasi-neutral" -- that a given volume of space essentially has equal numbers of positive and negative charges -- and they *assume* that magnetic fields are "frozen-in place" within a plasma (as opposed to being affected by the mechanics and electrodynamics of the plasma itself). Very importantly, this would all be true were it not for the natural behavior of plasmas within the laboratory. Within the laboratory, we see clear indications that all three of these assumptions are invalid. In the laboratory, plasmas will naturally form filaments. These filaments have long-range attraction and short-range repulsion, which means that they twist around one another, and yet never fully combine. These braided ropes are observed all over the place in space, and astrophysicists have a rich lexicon to pull from for describing them: magnetic ropes, flux tubes, or even elephant trunks. But one thing they greatly resist calling it is an "electric current", for if electric currents can exist in space on large scales, then they would certainly do things of importance. They would cause forces. This is a big problem for conventional theories because they have been assuming that space is not electrically connected as much as possible for centuries now. It's like an addiction that they just can't shake. The box keeps getting bigger for their closed electrical systems over time, but only at a snail's pace. The idea that the entire universe might be electrically connected is something that they refuse to consider even when presented with evidence that it is so.

              Maybe that's why so many people on /. are tired of the PU theory - it's unlikely that we'll get anything more definitive than "maybe it's true, maybe it isn't".

              Plasma-based theories are far more inherently testable than the current theories. In the conventional thinking, we don't even get rock-solid definitions for gravity and mass. And we're constantly barraged with pseudo-scientific ideas like multiple dimensions and string theory. What you have to realize is that the Plasma Universe is almost entirely based upon laboratory experience, whereas the conventional theories are largely the result of equations tinkering. The concept of "magnetic reconnection", for instance, which presumably demonstrates a mechanism for explaining the fact that the Sun's corona is 100x hotter than its surface (!), has never been validated within a laboratory despite being discussed for decades now. And importantly, there is no reason for why we cannot validate magnetic reconnection within the lab.

              There you go again, oodles of words that (sometimes) correspond well to what's in the collective body of scientific studies of the IPM (inter-planetary medium), magnetospheres of planets, stars, the ISM (inter-stellar medium), galaxies, AGN (active galactic nuclei), and so on, but (mostly) are distortions, mis-understandings, mis-characterisations, and (let's be honest here) outright falsehoods.

              Why not engage in a 'on the merits' discussion, in an internet discussion forum where LaTeX is implemented? Wher

              • Nereid, you seem to think that I *really* care about responding to your interruptions. But you present nothing for my mind to chew on. You are little more than a pest to me, and I've unfortunately stopped actually caring what you write. If I respond to you, consider it your lucky day, and don't expect twice in one day (unless you finally decide to send something that contradicts the ideas I speak of). I will only respond to your "meat" -- never the wasted typing that you fill screens with. Your comment

                • you present nothing for my mind to chew on

                  How about my question, about where one can go to get more information about Electric Universe/Plasma Universe ideas?

                  Here it is again: Why not tell us all the URL of [...] a forum which presents these 'Electric Universe' ideas, in the form of hypotheses models numbers equations data etc ... and permits an open discussion of how good the match between theory and observation actually is?

                  Within the Plasma Universe, we only believe things that are supported by observation; and if it has not been done in a lab, we will always remain somewhat dubious

                  Then surely you would be only too pleased to answer my questions!

                  Here they are again: [T]ell us all the name of the lab(s)

            • It took me a while to find this, but pln2bz referenced an older SD comment, by leokor ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=388752&cid=21836590 [slashdot.org]), which contains some material pertinent to this comment (of pln2bz's); I added the emphasis:

              (4) Normally, I wouldn't have to say it, since experiment is a necessary part of scientific method--remove experiment, and you've got no science (and I mean it). But seeing the prevalence of purely theoretical approach in the mainstream astrophysics, I want to emphasize that Plasma Universe places a heavy emphasis on experiment. No matter who's the author of a theory--even Alfven himself--even a couple of contrary experiments may be grounds for reconsidering the theory's hypotheses. Plasma Universe does not construct no epicycles. No does it care how beautiful a theory is. As someone once said, the greatest tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.

              So, in light of the dozens (hundreds?) of papers reporting 'magnetic reconnection' found in lab experiments, may we thus conclude that Alfvén's 'beautiful theory' has been 'slain'?

              Based on what you have written, here in SD, pln2bz, I imagine that you (and Thornhill,

              • So, in light of the dozens (hundreds?) of papers reporting 'magnetic reconnection' found in lab experiments, may we thus conclude that Alfvén's 'beautiful theory' has been 'slain'?

                Actually, Michael Mozina has been performing an in-depth review of magnetic reconnection for the past couple of months, and he holds to his belief that there continues to be no laboratory demonstration of magnetic reconnection within any of these studies. He lays out his arguments and thinking in this regard in great detail

                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by APODNereid (1203758)

                  Actually, Michael Mozina has been performing an in-depth review of magnetic reconnection

                  Is this, perchance, the same Michael Mozina who posted to this Einstein@Home thread (in the Science Message Board)?
                  [How the Sun shines: http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/forum_thread.php?id=6058 [uwm.edu]]

                  The guy who is co-author of a paper which claims the Sun was formed when a super-massive neutron star fragmented into smaller pieces, and one such fragment became a ~0.1 sol neutron star core of the Sun*?

                  The same one who has been particularly vehement, in many internet discussion fora, that a) the concept of 'neutron st

        • 1) 'the Plasma Universe' is NOT 'supported by IEEE! At least, not in the sense that you imply. In fact, I hear that this claim has caused some IEEE members to get quite upset, and they are now taking steps to stop this kind of nonsense.

          Here's the lowdown on the part of the IEEE that DOES cover plasma physics (my emphasis): "NPSS [Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society] IS...
          - The IEEE Technical Society that covers the fields of Fusion Technology, Nuclear Medical and Imaging Sciences, Particle Accelerator Sci

          • 1) 'the Plasma Universe' is NOT 'supported by IEEE! At least, not in the sense that you imply. In fact, I hear that this claim has caused some IEEE members to get quite upset, and they are now taking steps to stop this kind of nonsense.

            Nereid, you're trying to convince people that IEEE acts as a single individual. That's absurd. Consensus is great for things like religion, but less so for things like science. We do a disservice to science when we act as though people can be voted off of the island like i

            • I rather doubt a poll of people on their familiarity with QED (this wikipedia page will do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics [wikipedia.org]) would tell you much about how good a job it does, as a theory, in accounting for the relevant experimental results.

              Science - thank goodness - is not some version of American Idol.

              Plasma physics is pretty darn quantitative, and it has been applied (quantitatively) to astronomical observations, in order to develop hypotheses and models, to explain (in terms of mecha

              • mean, we could have a discussion on his papers, in terms of how well he has applied plasma physics and tested hypotheses against the actual astronomical observations .... quantitatively!

                What's amazing is that you have the cahones to argue anything about quantification. Your favored theories can only identify 4-5% of the universe. What good is a calculation with that sort of an error rate? Typically, people who only understand 4-5% of something are not so arrogant about their supposed knowledge. Most pe

                • I ask if you'd be interested in having a discussion on the plasma physics in Peratt's (galaxy) papers, and the extent to which it matches the relevant (astronomical) observations, a discussion that would, of necessity, by quantitative (with equations, numbers, and so on), and you reply with a tirade about "[my] favored theories can only identify 4-5% of the universe"!

                  Would you be so kind as to tell all readers just what APODNereid's "favored theories" are? Be sure to use only APODNereid's comments in Slash
                  • Nereid, I will never commit to a formal discussion with you. That would be like throwing away days of my life, and I have nothing to prove to you whatsoever. You represent a dying paradigm and you don't realize it because you refuse to consider evidence unless it meets your own strict requirements. You will surely deny the possibility of things like anti-gravitation until somebody demonstrates it directly to you, and only then will you realize that your core philosophy of science is in fact nothing more
    • The 'significance' of the apparent similarity is far more mundane.

      What you 'see' in the image is a representation of data from an instrument attached to a telescope in Chile.

      That data itself is the result of a great deal of number crunching, based on long chains of logic, based on theories of physics.

      The "the structure of the infrared filaments -- the star's corona -- coming off of it" is nothing of the sort!

      If you are REALLY interested in those 'infrared filaments', I would be happy to recommend a few pape
  • Imagine all of the things we have seen and learned about in our lifetimes? The whole prospect of finding other objects out there in the universe still amazes me, even though my cereal doesn't come with Haley's Comet matchbox cars and Nasa patches aren't cool anymore. Damn you trendy space-lovers! Damned you all!
  • All I ever hear from you is stuff about
    "White holes", "Black Holes", etc etc.

    Now, north of the border, a good Canadian Asstrophysical lad would simply say
    "Up Uranus!"
    and be done with it!


    • The problem with "underdevelop" as the crux of one's view of international relations is that overly rapid development is also harmful, basically because it compresses even more of the deleterious side-effects of development into even shorter periods than they were/are/have been given in the West to mix & re-stabilize.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.