Strange Mini Solar System Found 373
starexplorer writes "In 1990, Penn State's Alex Wolszczan found the first exoplanets. But he never got much credit from mainstream researchers, because his planets (3
of them, roughly Earth-sized) orbit pulsars and hold no chance for harboring life. Now he's found a 4th object on the outskirts of the system, SPACE.com is reporting. Call it a planet, call it an asteroid, Wolszczan says, but call the setup a dark, eerie twin of the inner half of our solar system. Also in the same story, news of a brown dwarf just 15 times the mass of Jupiter that has a planet-making disk of stuff around it. Together, more problems for astronomers, who still don't have a basic
definition for the word planet or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars."
Re:Superman (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope some day humans can see them in person.
Star vs Planet (Score:3, Interesting)
No chance of life? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish people wouldn't say things like this. Humans barely have a grasp on what life really is and what conditions it can exist under, especially off our own planet. So how could we make a judgement that life couldn't exist around a pulsar, despite its homo-sapien threatening conditions.
Smallest planet (Score:2, Interesting)
From the article:
In one of the discoveries, an object just one-fifth the size of Pluto was called the smallest planet ever found outside our solar system
If it's one-fifth the size of Pluto, wouldn't that make it the smallest planet ever found anywhere?
Why on Earth does the name matter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we've found lots of things that come in between, requiring a different form of classification. The only problem is that people are trying to squeeze the definition of things we know about into a limited naming set.
To name something doesn't mean we understand it and being unable to name something doesn't mean we don't understand it.
People should stop worrying and be happy that we can describe these objects to a higher level of detail than can be described using the existing names we had for things floating in space.
Solar? It's not Solar at all, morons (Score:2, Interesting)
The term "mini solar system" is wrong. Solar -the word- is derived from Sol, the name of that thing we call "the sun" (cue CD7 joke about Sun, long a source of amusement) aka that great big yellow ball thing.
It is Sol. If you didn't know it had a name, blame your teachers.
Our happy family of planets is the Solar System. Because we all belong to Sol. There is one Sol and one Solar System in the entire universe.
This newly discoved system of planets is orbiting ANOTHER STAR which is not named Sol and has nothing to do with Sol. I guess calling it "strange star system" would have invoked too many B-grade actors or something.
It shouldn't be that hard. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not as sexy as having a word like "planet", but all this confusion could be eliminated with a basic classification system that took into account distinguishing characteristics besides just it's mass.
As an example, one could define these objects through two primary attributes: The body's mass and the mass of that which it orbits. As I don't have exact mass data at hand, this example will use the following over-simplifications:
S = Solar Mass
G = Gas Giant Mass
R = Rock Planet Mass
M = Minor Mass ( appx Phobos to Pluto )
A = Asteroid Mass
D = Debrit ( 1m or smaller )
Of course, the real system would use exact scientific measurments rather than these crude examples.
Earth = SR ( Rock Planet Mass orbiting a Solar Mass )
Jupiter = SG ( Gas Giant Mass orbiting a Solar Mass )
Pluto = SM ( Minor Mass orbiting a Solar Mass )
Titan = GR ( Rock Planet Mass orbiting a Gas Giant Mass )
etc
etc
You could even create a symbol to represent the galactic center, which could be used in relation to stars and other free roaming bodies. Binary stars can be represented using SS, since they're orbiting each other.
Anyway, the point is that you can not come up with solid definitions of these bodies on mass alone. Take into account other major factors as this example does.
Re:Planets from stars? (Score:2, Interesting)
If you were to say so, then the Earth is a star by that definition. Some of the more complex electrochemical reactions taking place there have resulted in a number of Dt-Dt reactions in the past century or so.
Re:The definitive definition (Score:2, Interesting)
This is especially significant if recent theories that black holes are actually hollow shells of matter at the event horizon are correct, or if the matter within the event horizon is otherwise not a singularity (as, if I understand the implications correctly, Hawking's recent concession about information loss indicates).
Re:Solar? It's not Solar at all, morons (Score:4, Interesting)
He has a habit of using the word "solar" for non-solar topics, and of course the Space.com stories end up on the wire services and are repeated by hundreds of TV talking heads. All that does is make the problem worse. It's bad enough that most people don't even know the name of their star. We don't need them attaching that name to totally unrelated objects.
Here's an unedited quote from him regarding a complaint on the same subject from one of his previous stories:
Thanks for your note. You are correct in the strict sense, but astronomy and language are evolving. We now know of many other systems that look familiar. And many astronomers have come use the term "solar system" to describe other planetary systems. It's becoming a bit like Kleenex in its generic usage.
I'm all for accuracy, but I think also that language is fluid, and if astronomers use the term interchangeably, then I think it's best I do so,
too. I also find it the most convenient term to convey a system of planets with a central star -- and there are hints of lone, wandering planets not
hosted by a star, so a distinction is helpful (at least until the latter situation is sorted out). I appreciate hearing from you because notes like
yours help me frame my approach to writing.
Re:Planets from stars? (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that it is possible to have very large planets that do not have fusion as you describe but have such a large volume to surface area that they retain heat for a long time. That heat may be enough to actually make the planet glow like a star and warm a retinue of moon-planets. It would look like a dim star. I'd agree it is a planet but that that doesn't mean it cant have its own lifebearing worlds.
Leave differentiation to the experts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Would The Earth cease to be a planet just because something threw it forever out of our solar system? (Well actually, for now almost certainly yes, 'cos then there'd be no humans to define "planet" ;). At what point does an asteroid have to collect enough dust and become spherical enough to become a planet? Not all planets are spherical - Mercury is more elliptical from memory, thanks to effects of being in close proximity to a star... errr, the Sun. They wouldn't even have to necessarily spin - though that would help with roundness.
Also from recollection of earlier dictionaries, our moon would become a planet (or planetoid?) if some catastrophe yanked it away from the earth, to forever go around the sun - because it wouldn't then be a body orbiting a planet - a simple, but rock solid definition IMHO. Oh but hang on, what about all those little rocks orbiting Earth???
In that respect remember that some definitions are probably inherently transitional, depending on what they are doing. If it's a rock orbiting a sun, it's an asteroid, around a planet then it's a moon, if it's become round (has enough gravitational pull to hold itself together?) then it's a planet if it's going around a Sun - or is it, because what if the planet escapes?
I believe the dictionary definition of "moon" is pretty good already, but as for the rest... I hope you can see what I mean because it gives me a headache! If we set a strict definition of a type of celestial body, and then suddenly we discover that there are so many more bodies that just don't quite fit the category, then what? I don't fancy taking liquid paper to my dictionary. So I will leave splitting those hairs to the experts.
Re:No chance of life? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, for non-humans such chest-bumps might fulfil completely different functions... such as huge night-vision eyes or tentacle clusters or egg sacs. All sorts of things.
But if theres anything I've learned from Trek, B5, Farscape etc etc its that theres at least one universal biological constant and thats that all alien females have some sort of rounded, paired protruberances on the chests, usually about the size of rock-melons.
This holds true whether they are mammalianoid, reptilianoid, even plant-based aliens.
I don't know whether to find it reassuring or disturbing.
No Lables. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is rather funny how we humans need a way to pigeon hole everything we observe. And the more we observe the more pigeon holes we need to add. The universe didn't come with labels and many things are don't neatly fall in to a area. I think we have forgotten that language is created by humans and can and should be expanded to explain new things we observe. Maybe english needs a word that explains objects in less of a pigeon hold method and more of a gradient scale. I will use say we use the word. "blong" for something is more then something else like "Jupiter is planet blong star", quaz for something that is in the middle "Pluto is planet quaz asteriod"