1376517
story
Smitty825 writes:
"The LA Times is reporting that scientists have discovered planets that have no sustaining stars. They are still pretty big (like 5-15 times Jupiter's size), but they are still too small to be considered Brown Dwarfs! Read the full story here." There's also a story in
space.com.
Re:No planets without stars (Score:1)
Actaully, they are closer to brown dwarfs than anything else. Also, almost all planets put out their own radiation (which is a form of light). Jupiter, for example, is hot enough to put out quite a bit of radiation without the sun. So, by the standard definition, I don't think even earth counts as a planet. I'm sure earth puts out some radiation on the lower end of the scale (radio waves and such which count as light, just not visible light). But perhaps the dictionary meaning isn't the one used in astronomy. If it is, I think it needs to be updated. Either that, or ignored.
Geeks (Score:1)
-John
Re:This isn't useful... (Score:2)
Re:Not Planet (Score:1)
Thanks!
Re:Interesting but not big suprise (Score:2)
Sorry couldn't let this one go by.. pet peeve of mine. Moderate accordingly.
Re:Interesting but not big suprise (Score:2)
Re:No planets without stars (Score:2)
Well, not exactly. The only reason planets orbit stars is because we define them in that manner, just as we define a moon to orbit a planet. Does it matter that these particular bodies are orbiting planets? Not really. If the people who define what a planet is, decide they want to change the definition, then so be it.
By the way, etimologically planet means wanderer, so refusing to call these wandering objects planets goes against common sense, at least for people fluent in Greek
There are so many levels I could take this. Let's just say, that your logic escapes me. Just because it's etymologically based on the greek word for wanderer matters very little with how we define it today. Asteroids wander but we don't call them planets. Comets wander but they're not planets either. Many, many words are based on words from other languages, that have totally different meanings in today's indioms.
Top 10 Reasons why Intelligent Life... (Score:2)
10. Whoops. I didn't know hyperdrives did that.
9. Low threshold radiation is a big problem when you live to 1000.
8. Too much static--we can't hear our MP256 players.
7. Ringworld didn't work out.
6. It's where all the good TV shows went.
5. Data Havens.
4. Jar-Jar doesn't live there.
3. We were sick of those damn auroras.
2. You just click on your planet browser to get there, so what's the problem?
1. It's more like Finland.
P.S. does anyone know how to make HTML list elements run backwards? This seems to be a serious oversight in the standards....
Re:my thoughts (Score:1)
In fact, one of the ways stars in clusters are classified is by the presense or lack of heavy elements in the stars, which indicates whether or not they formed from heavy element-rich material.
ccg
Re:An interesting theory (Score:2)
Light speed Extra Solar travel is dangerous (Score:1)
You don't have to go to the nearest visible star to be somewhere. You really only have to go a small distance into the dark. It is probably a small jump from planet to planet. Space is full of dark planets. Stepping stones to everywhere...
Re:So? (Score:1)
ccg
Re:Light speed Extra Solar travel is dangerous (Score:1)
Re:The 10th Planet - Our True Origin (Plain Text) (Score:1)
ccg
Solar systems do orbit around something else (Score:1)
The idea at the end of MIB is more like that our universe is contained within one of the elementary particles of a 'higher' universe. And since we cannot (so far) probe inside electrons and quarks, there may well be *tiny* universes inside them. This 'encapsulation' might go on indefinitely in both directions.
--
Re:What to they orbit around? (Score:1)
Nomenclature Headaches (Score:1)
Well, if you think we're having trouble with nomenclature now, just think...
If there can be so-called "planets" this big, can there ever be a case of a star-like object orbiting a planet-like object?
Hmm... starlets?
(Remember, you heard it here first! :-)
Re:Interesting but not big suprise (Score:1)
Re:my thoughts (Score:1)
The original submission (Score:1)
Re:Life? (Score:1)
Also, tectonic movement is not an issue for a planet of this size as it is almost certainly gasseous and not solid. Also, tectonic activity on rocky planets is likely caused by an active and hot core, not the other way around.
I can just see it now... (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:1)
Finding a planet without a sun is just a touch odd...
Hrm... anyone know if they considered the possibility that the stars for these planets may have burned out completely long ago?
Kierthos
Re:No planets without stars (Score:2)
All bodies emit some radiation due to their temperature, but a too small body far from any star will basically be in equilibrium with the background radiation and be invisible. Larger bodies like Earth emit more heat for quite some time after they are born because of radioactive decay of heavy elements like uranium. Much larger bodies, Jupiter sized and above emit proportionally more radiation. AFAIR, the most important internal energy source is the slow but very long lasting gravitational contraction. These are planets.
The fact that they are or not orbiting a star is irrelevant. Celestial mechanics in a complex system with several large planets or around a binary star can cause ejection of a planet outside of the stellar system, so such an object might actually have formed around a star. Would you change the classification of an object depending on the object around which its orbit is bounded (a star or the galactic center) ?
By the way, etimologically planet means wanderer, so refusing to call these wandering objects planets goes against common sense, at least for people fluent in Greek.
Re:What to they orbit around? (Score:1)
According to Sitchin, the planet started off as a rogue that was captured by the gravity of our sun a couple billion years ago, and when it came close enough, one of its satellites smashed into a planet orbiting between Mars and Jupiter, knocking it out of orbit, where it settled back into an orbit between Mars and Venus. What is left of the satellite orbits what is left of the smashed planet to this day, and there is now a field of debris between Mars and Jupiter where the planet originally orbited.
So far, the existence of rogue planets is coming to light, and there have been theories presented that say that the moon came into being when a planetoid gouged out a giant chunk. But where the book goes from the astronomically possible to Erich von Daniken's _Chariots of the Gods_ level of "you got to be kidding!" is that the Sumerians knew this because the aliens that inhabit the rogue planet told them so.
Now even Sitchin won't say how the aliens got to inabit a planet with such a wild orbit that it takes a beating in the asteroid belt when near the Sun and takes a beating by comets in the Oort Cloud when furthest out and risks ending up smashing into Jupiter and igniting it into a new sun, but does go on to say that the aliens have been meddling in the affairs of humanity for our entire existence. Supposedly each time the planet is nearby and the aliens come, civilization advances. He postulates the Sumerian and Egyptian era cultures were aided by the aliens. So if it really exists, and we were able to spot this planet with the Hubble Space Telescope, we would have thousands of years worth of history books to re-write (or correct).
"Mother very easily made a jam sandwich using no peanuts, mayonnaise or glue." - Robert Anton Wilson, in _Schrödinger's Cat Trilogy_
a possible explanation (Score:2)
Re:No planets without stars (Score:1)
Stars act as almost perfect blackbodies, but even less-perfect objects like planets behave similarly. For example, your body is about 300K, which is why you emit infrared radiation. You are not a star, but you emit your own light.
ccg
Re:my thoughts (Score:1)
This planet was probably placed in its current position by a race of advanced beings in order to create an isolated home free from the dangers of being near a solar mass.
Re:No, it's not a planet... (Score:1)
"No! We told you to blow up the THIRD planet."
Re:What to they orbit around? (Score:1)
(BTW, there are 18 of these planets discovered by the same 'team'.)
A few notes on Pluto, MACHOs, Dark Matter, etc. (Score:3)
Furthermore, Pluto has a moon, Charon, like many other planets in our solar system. Unlike the others, Pluto is the only one that is so small relative to its own moon that their orbital barycenter is above the planet's surface. When any two objects orbit each other, the smaller one does not orbit the exact center of the larger one. There is a single point between the two, called the barycenter, around which they both orbit. The greater the difference in mass, the closer the barycenter gets to the center of the more massive object. Incidentally, this is why massive planets can cause a detectable wobble in their host star, which is one way we can detect extrasolar planets.
Also, this planetary discovery sounds similar to the Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) proposed to explain dark matter. However, last I heard, the best estimates for the possible amount of MACHO mass still only accounted for a small percentage of the missing mass (the dark matter). I believe there is a search underway to detect MACHOs with gravitational lensing. Although the discovery of "local" planets without stars may provide legitimacy to the idea of MACHOs, it doesn't explain the missing matter. The missing matter is outside the visible disk of the galaxy, or at least at its edge, if I remember correctly. Adding more mass to the interior of the disk won't explain the high rotation rates at the edge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
ccg
(the history graduate who wishes he were an astronomer)
Re:Light speed Extra Solar travel is dangerous (Score:2)
----
Dark matter? (Score:1)
--
EFF Member #11254
The center of gravity for the system, just like us (Score:1)
Take two planets, send them past each other and, if they "get caught" in each others gravitational field, then they will orbit each other around the center. Add more planets, and you just have a more complex system, but there will still be a center of gravity.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Kierthos
Re:Life? (Score:1)
Re:Life? (Score:1)
These are not planets. (Score:1)
They are not planets. Stars come in all sizes, some so massive they get so hot they burn out fast, some are even more massive they become so hot they break apart before they can even form a proper star. Generally, the smaller, the less light they give off, these are simply so small they can not "burn" hydrogen, and probably radiate very little heat. Some people think they should be called planets because they look like jupiter, and do not glow, but that is wrong. Their formation is the same as stars. Planets form in the wake of a star's formation.
Maybe a very, very small number of them are planets blown out of a dying solar system, or from a forming system, etc. But the vast majority are formed exactly the way stars are formed, just not enough mass to ever glow.
What to they orbit around? (Score:1)
Just think of all the books that would have to be revised to accomodate the addition of a new planet in our solar system...
Well, somebody has to say it... (Score:2)
---
Re:What to they orbit around? (Score:2)
Seriously, though, they will probably be orbiting around the gravitational center of the galaxy, just like our sun and most of the other stars in the galaxy do.
No, it's not a planet... (Score:3)
it's a Death Star!
Conservation of Momentum (Score:1)
If the planets are rotating at a constant speed relative to the Earth, we will eventually be able to travel to them via telegraph wire with RFC-0001 MORSE-CODE protocol.
This rare event could only take place because of heavy machinery polluting our air with toxic fumes.
Life? (Score:2)
So? (Score:1)
Interesting but not big suprise (Score:2)
I've long wondered what kind of stuff we might find in the vast distances between stars. The stars all condensed from interstellar gas and dust. It seems reasonable to assume that chunks bigger than dust are out there as well. Who knows what kind of huge lumps of rock or whatever might be out there, too far away to see in the dim light of interstellar space. Of course they couldn't really be too terribly huge otherwise they would condense down into something that would self ignite. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and I doubt there are all that many places where you've got heavier elements in vast quantities without vast quantities of hydrogen as well.
Not too long ago I heard something about a theory that there is a massive tenth planet in our solar system with a really long orbit that takes it out into the oort cloud. Not saying I believe it, but it was interesting.
Lee Reynolds
Lee Reynolds
Re:universe (Score:1)
Don't forget Uranus
Re:What do they orbit around? (Score:1)
Aren't we all rocket scientists? hehe
Like you said, it makes sense (Score:1)
: Not too long ago I heard something about a theory that there is a massive tenth planet in our solar system with a really long orbit that takes it out into the oort cloud. Not saying I believe it, but it was interesting.
Ah yes, the infamous Planet X. Remeber the buzz about that a few years ago, but haven't heard much since.
Dark Nexus who can't remember his password
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
No planets without stars (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:1)
Re:Better Headline (Score:2)
Way to go slashdot.
Dark Matter Found? (Score:1)
If so, I guess the MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Objects, or something like that) was right.
Re:Interesting but not big suprise (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:1)
Quick, Claim one for Sealand! (Score:1)
Re:my thoughts (Score:1)
Re:my thoughts (Score:2)
Re:my thoughts (Score:3)
Re:Interesting but not big suprise (Score:2)
For a detailed discussion of these differences and more, you might want to check out Lunar Colony [lunarcolony.com]'s article, "What's the difference between a planet and a brown dwarf star? [lunarcolony.com]". They also have an article "What's the difference between a planet and an asteroid? [lunarcolony.com]".
Hope this helps.
Re:Life? (Score:1)
"What do you want?"
"I want..." The moderator's voice trailed off. He took a heavy step towards Vivienne. She jumped back and aimed her M$ mace at the advancing figure. He took another step, and Vivienne pressed the spray button. The canister sputtered weakly. Vivienne silently cursed Bill Gates and all of his descendents, and threw the canister directly at the moderator's face. He stumbled and fell to the pavement, and Vivienne realized that something was wrong with this moderator. He wasn't hiding behind the usual shield of power.
"Are you hurt?" Vivienne couldn't leave him on the ground like that, even if he was a moderator. She helped him to his feet. He unsteadily made his way to lean on the car again.
"What happened to you?"
"I... I.." his voice failed him again. Against her better judgement, Vivienne unlocked the passenger door and half helped, half pushed him into the seat. He was barely conscious. She closed the door, and went around to her door. After one last moment of hesitation, she started the car and began to drive.
Stay tuned for the next installation...
Re:No planets without stars (Score:1)
What's up with the lameness filter? Not enough words?
Well, when you think about it.... (Score:1)
It's this magma core that creates volcanic vents that are found deep in the ocean, providing the heat needed to sustain life at those low depths were sunlight never reaches.
Mind you, according to the article [cnn.com] on CNN [cnn.com] we aren't dealing with planets like Earth, which isn't suprising. Supposedly they're much larger, currently larger than Jupiter and Saturn. The question of life on a Gas Giant is a whole different ball game. Like with Jupiter though, it's possible that they've also got moons that could, theoretically, support life.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
Dark Nexus
Re:No, it's not a planet... (Score:1)
Re:No planets without stars (Score:1)
Uh, whose definition? Planeton are simply wanderers in the sky -- which these would be in a cosmic sense, but not in the "point of light that wanders relative to the fixed stars" sense.
Of course, on the latter logic, planets in other solar systems wouldn't be planets, because we can't see them and because, if we could, they wouldn't wander relative to our eye. Indeed, the Greek definition of 'star' didn't (for most) include something not visible by the naked eye, from the surface of the earth.
Definitions change :)
Christ, I'm tired of this... (Score:3)
Listen, guys. Here, on *this* planet, is life that can thrive on Jupiter. Yeah, that's right, it exists already. They're hidden in sealed-off caves beneath the ocean floor. There's microbes in the Antarctic.
The people who say life isn't likely to exist on these planets because of the extreme environment are probably the same people who think we're killing the Earth with pollution. We're friggin' *gnats* compared to the Earth. We try our hardest to destroy the Earth - and I mean bend *all* of our global effort towards it - and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference a million years from now. And according to our best knowledge, a million years is the blink of an eye. At *best* we'd be a tiny high/low point on a graph, and you'd need a magnifying glass to see the damage we did.
So, to sum up:
a) We don't know a damned thing about these planets, and we have absolutely *NO* idea whether or not life exists on them.
b) Life here on Earth, in our own backyard, can stand extremes like you wouldn't believe. Pressures that makes diamonds out of coal, cold that comes close to absolute zero(coldest known temperature is something like -200C, which is only 72/73 degrees above absolute zero), heat that would melt anything humans have ever produced are nothing to life.
c) Okay, offtopic, but I'm on a roll
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Dumbass question. (Score:1)
It being "all alone" out there leaves nothing else nearby. It's gravity although relatively low, is the only 'well' around, and should therefore grab everything close enough until it's own mass becomes critical enough to form a solar mass....See, that WAS stupid.
Also, perhaps these 'stand alone' planets(assuming their gaseous like all the other ones found out there) were formed by the after effect of a singularity.
Let me elaborate on that one before I call it a stupid idea.
Let's assume that a singularity needs to 'exit' somewhere in this Universe. There have been theories saying this could explain the presence of "white holes" elsewhere in the universe. But what if the energy doesn't come out as violently as it went in?
Or what about really SMALL singularities which formed during the early expansion of the universe? If they indeed 'exit' elsewhere in the Universe, couldn't they just form objects such as planets.
Not immediately of course, but after entropy has chewed away at it for a while(on both ends that is).
OK, now THAT was a stupid idea...
Another one... (Score:1)
What if these planets ARE flying through space at 26,000 k as the result of some supernova of a star they were previously a member of?
Or what about some other phenomena that sent it out of orbit?
Did they even say if these bodies are moving at a faster rate than the expansion of the Universe?
I had better go check that article over again...
Last one. I swear. (Score:1)
Sure beats the heck out of interstellar travel doesn't it?
Re:What to they orbit around? (Score:1)
Wasn't there a Star Trek episode about that? (Score:1)
Anyway, the CNN article I linked to earlier in this discussion has a quote from one of the astronomers that found these planets:
"Perhaps these objects were ejected from their orbits from their original birthplaces around the stars."
But as for civilization, since these are all gas giants that were found, and the fact that there's more than just one planet indicates that it probably wasn't a conscious decision by some alien civilization. At least not by a civilization that could possibly fit any definition of life & civilization that we currently have.
Dark Nexus
Re:Dark matter? (Score:1)
TUX SUX (Score:1)
DD..III.EEE.TTT.U.U.X.X
D D..I..EE...T..U.U..X.
DD..III.EEE..T..UUU.X.X
Re:What to they orbit around? (Score:1)
Re:my thoughts (Score:2)
I think what he was trying to say is that what if we discover that 1+1 != 2, that there is really *something* else going on. With how math relates to physics I can definatly see that being true. Your right, it's not that "math" could be wronge, it's that maybe whatever we always concedered 1 of something tangably really isn't one. maybe it can't be discribed that way at all.
Also, I like that he is thinking differntly (no, I dont like Macs). People shouldn't be slammed for thinking something that contredes the common way of thought. He's not crazy, just injoys thinking "what if" thats all.
-Jon
Re:Life? (Score:1)
It's too far from the sun to receive enough energy to be useful, however, there are some theories that suggest a magnetic interference from Jupiter could cause enough warming within the core of Europa to generate the necessary energy to sustain life.
So, while it's not likely we're going to find a lot of complex life on these rogue planets, a couple of large ones may have smaller moons in a similar configuration as Jupiter and Europa. It's becoming accepted that bacteria can survive under the most harsh conditions imaginable.
Re:A few notes on Pluto, MACHOs, Dark Matter, etc. (Score:1)
A few months ago, Scientific American ran a great article explaining it pretty clearly. I won't get into here since it's off topic, but needless to say, my guess is that the dark matter is a result of us being able to observe the effects of gravitons that are radiating from beyond a distance that we could travel normally. In other, crazier sounding words, the gravitons are being emitted from objects that are beyond our current dimension.
Trust me, try and get your hands on the article. It's fascinating stuff. And while I'm so far off topic already, may I recommend the book Hyperspace [amazon.com] by Michio Kaku.
Re:Life? (Score:2)
However, that isn't the case here. First, this isn't just a collection of random gas giants. What was actually found was a loosely bound cluster of young dim stars, brown dwarfs, and gas giant planets. Based upon the surveyed area and the estimated size of the cluster, we're actually talking about several hundred objects. In fact, the reason they were looking there at all was because of spectroscopic anomalies in the vicinity of a visible star (the brightest star in the cluster).
Check out this article in Science magazine [sciencemag.org] for full details.
A planet without stars!!! (Score:1)
ChicagoFan
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
It's the earth's proximity to the sun and the moon's gravitational fields that help prolong our own tectonic activity, and for moons like Io circling Jupiter, they've got both crushing gravitational tides and magnetic fields to keep them active.
Slackware (Score:1)
was darkstar maybe these astronomers should recycle that name
Re:No planets without stars (Score:1)
Arent they just huge asteroids then??
True, but... (Score:1)
Better Headline (Score:4)
Re:Interesting but not big suprise (Score:2)
I heard, a couple of years ago (maybe less), about some astronomer that claimed to have discoverted a new planet orbiting the sun. I dont think I've heard anything since thoguh.
What is the differece between an asteroid, planet and brown dwarf though? Just size? You could say that there are millions of "planets" orbiting in the Oort cloud, and indeed any asteroid in a near circular orbit.
If I remember my Star Trek history correctly, the original Foudners homeworld (well, the one we saw in "The Search" was also a "rouge planet", without a star orbiting (yet it was class M for some reason...)
Not Planet (Score:1)
Re:Life? (Score:2)
Extrasolar planets! (Score:2)
Re:Life? (Score:1)
Re:Life? (Score:2)
The 10th Planet - Our True Origin (Score:1)
Re:No planets without stars (Score:2)
So the obvious question is, (Score:2)
Re:No planets without stars (Score:2)
Re:An interesting question (Score:2)
McAndrews Chronicles (Score:2)
--
Re:Dark Matter Found? (Score:2)
my thoughts (Score:2)
If we find an isolated planet like the one mentioned, it simply means that there was enough gas to cause contraction, but not enough to create a central pressure great enough to cause a temperature of aobut 10^7 Kelvins (I think that's the right temperature) so that Hydrogen fusion will take place. It probably formed from a small, somewhat isolated, interstellar cloud. That is precisely what a brown dwarf is, except they are usually bigger. It is a would-be star, but there just was not enough raw material available for hydrogen fusion. Jupiter is the closest thing in our solar system to being a brown dwarf. We might have had a binary solar system had enough gas collected where jupiter is, however, it did not. Instead the pressure at jupiter's center only causes temperatures high enough for metallic hydrogen (I think that's what it's called) to exist. It's not nearly hot enough for fusion. I believe that a brown dwarf has to reach about 80 times Jupiter's mass to be considered a brown dwarf.
I think I saw someone ask something about life on a planet like this. It is highly unlikely because of the volitile environment, enormous (by earth's standards) gravity, and presumably very hot surface (think Jupiter). The planet would almost certainly not be solid like earth because of its size and because of the concentration of material in space. If there is enough material to form a solid rock that size, then there is probably an ass-load (couldn't think of a better term) of material around and you could bet that there would be a large star near the planet.
Another thing that could be an issue is the definition of a planet. Generally the definition of a planet includes the fact that it orbits something. If an isolated planet-like structure exits wihtout a star and it is not large enough to be a brown dwarf, then we may have a new category of atronomical object on our hands. Either that or we have to change the definition of one of these things (most likely brown dwarf or planet). Or it could be that a planet doesn't have to orbit something by the astronomical definition and I'm completely wrong. Either way is fine with me.
Ok, I think that is plenty of information. Sorry if I've bored you or made lots of mistakes typing/spelling. Also, my facts may not be exactly correct, but I believe they are all correct in a general sense. If not, feel free to call me an idiot and correct me.
An interesting question (Score:2)
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
Re:Life? (Score:3)
The lack of tectonic activity mentioned in another post would mean that the core of the planet would not stay hot enough for life forms resembling those at the bottom of our oceans to survive for long.
However, if life did form, we might not recognize it for what it is. Sadly, by the time we get there, the planet would probably be a dark, dormant, and extremely boring rock, if it still existed.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate