Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

First Map of an Extrasolar Planet 97

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the google-not-earth dept.
jiawen writes "Data from the Spitzer Space Telescope has been used by researchers to make the first-ever map of an extrasolar planet. It's a weather map, more precisely, showing temperature variations over the surface of a Hot Jupiter. It really is hot: even the coldest regions are about 1200 degrees F."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Map of an Extrasolar Planet More

First Map of an Extrasolar Planet

Comments Filter:

  • but can I view it (Score:4, Funny)

    by froggero1 ( 848930 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @08:16AM (#19103153)
    on google maps?
    • (Checking for press release announcing Google Space)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lijemo ( 740145 )
        "(Checking for press release announcing Google Space)"

        http://mars.google.com/ [google.com]

        http://moon.google.com/ [google.com]

        I really, really hope that they do add exoplanets.google.com to this list. (or even just other planets/moons within our own solar system...)

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by H3g3m0n ( 642800 )
          Its not exactly a real map, its just a really basic heat map, having the ability to zoom in and such isn't really going to be much of an improvement over viewing the jpeg http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2007-09a_ medium.jpg [nasa.gov] Even if it was more than a heat map. the planet doesn't even have anything mappable, its a gas giant so its continuously changing (although maybe there would be some more permanent features like the great red spot on Jupiter). I imagine the Google landmarks for it would consis

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Lijemo ( 740145 )
            Well, a temperature map is still a map =^) Jupiter.google.com, for instance, could show prevailing wind directions, approximate boundaries of bands between different atmospheric or meteorological compositions, etc. I read that the winds on that exoplanet are killer, too keep the temperature as close to evenly distributed as it is. (Haven't read TFA, but I saw a newstory about it someplace else on Friday.)
    • Google-HD189733b (Beta, of course).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )
      ...on The Weather Channel?

  • 1200 degrees F? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PontifexPrimus ( 576159 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @08:22AM (#19103181)
    So, how much is that in real temperature? Like, 35 degrees C or something?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The only real temperature is Kelvin (which admittetly is based on Celcius which makes a lot more sense than the screwed-up Fahrenheit scale imho :)
      1 200 degrees Fahrenheit = 922.038889 kelvin [google.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lijemo ( 740145 )
        To be fair, the original point of F was to be a temperature scale that you could calibrate yourself, which made a lot of sense for scientific-types back before you could buy an accurately pre-calibrated thermometer in any dime store.

        The idea was that 0-degrees was ice-water (e.g. the temperature where water can exist simultaneously as a liquid and a solid. The freezing temperature of water is actually lower than this, and plain old h20-ice can get a lot colder than the freezing temperature.) and 100-degrees

        • Not quite exactly (Score:3, Interesting)

          by DrYak ( 748999 )

          The idea was that 0-degrees was ice-water (e.g. the temperature where water can exist simultaneously as a liquid and a solid. The freezing temperature of water is actually lower than this

          Actually the 0 was fixed as a mix of ice and salt, that also happened to be the lowest temperature observed in winter time in his region (Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has a couple of such stories).
          0F is much lower than the freezing point of water (around 0C or +32F).

          Celsius fixed his 0 according to physical properties of water - freezing and

          • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            As a matter of fact, it seems we still don't know for dead certain what Fahrenheit's reasoning behind his choices were. We've got some pretty good guesses, but I tried to do some research on this when another person asked me once, and I couldn't find any authoratative answers. Between Wikipedia and several assorted websites hosted on university domains that appeared to have some signs of authenticity, I came up with over half a dozen theories. I guess a lot got lost in the nearly 300 years since he came up

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by EachLennyAPenny ( 731871 )
      Well, if you'd bother to read TFA you would find out: 930 degrees Celsius.
    • I think it's more like 36.4
    • Man it's hot. It's like Africa hot. Tarzan couldn't take this kind of hot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by zippthorne ( 748122 )
      Reminds me of an old joke:

      "The interior is 50 million degrees."
      "What scale?" ...
      "Does it matter?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eonlabs ( 921625 )
      It's hot enough that typical glass starts to ooze. Much hotter than that (1600-2000) and you reach typical hot shop temperatures where glass blowing is done.

    • So, how much is that in real temperature? Like, 35 degrees C or something?

      You know I thought the same thing (I mean this is supposed to be science reporting), but then I figured that by the time you got to 1200, it just had to be above body temperature!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      You damn kids are ALL wrong. When I was a kid, we measured OUR degrees by the hogshead. AND WE LIKED IT!
  • but seriously. It orbits very close to its sun so is anyone surprised the damn thing is really hot?

    • Re:Interesting in a way i suppose (Score:5, Informative)

      by radtea ( 464814 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @11:50AM (#19104367)
      but seriously. It orbits very close to its sun so is anyone surprised the damn thing is really hot?

      The interesting science is how the temperature is distributed, not that it is really hot. The planet is almost certainly tidally locked, so one side faces the star all the time. However, the hottest part of the planet is not at the "high noon" position on the "surface" (which for some reason is what the article calls the cloud-tops).

      The highest temperature region is about 30 degrees (angle, not temperature!) away from high noon. This, plus the relatively small temperature difference between the light hemisphere and dark hemisphere tell us that the planetary atmosphere is subject to extremely high winds, which are distributing the heat.

      This is a fascinating way of probing the dynamics of planetary atmospheres under extreme conditions.
      • The highest temperature region is about 30 degrees (angle, not temperature!) away from high noon. This, plus the relatively small temperature difference between the light hemisphere and dark hemisphere tell us that the planetary atmosphere is subject to extremely high winds, which are distributing the heat.

        Or, much more plausible, rotation is not locked on a 1:1 scale. If the relation is synchronized on some higher harmonic, like Mercury is locked on a 3:2 ratio, the hottest spot should be displaced in the

  • Amazing that this is possible at all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phrogman ( 80473 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @08:26AM (#19103207)
    It doesn't seem all that long ago that scientists were merely *inferring* the presence of planets in other solar systems, now we are able to derive a map of one from IR data? Thats an amazing amount of progress for so short a time period. It would be interesting to know how far away this system is, and how large the planet is. If that data was in the article I seem to have missed it...

    • Re:Amazing that this is possible at all (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @08:30AM (#19103231) Journal
      Yes, it's the most interesting area of space exploration now, and imagine where we'll be if the Kepler mission [wikipedia.org] is successful and don't get further pushed ahead in time by budget cuts.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by jdagius ( 589920 )
      I don't think it's that amazing. I think all they're doing is logging the brightness of the disk while it rotates around the sun, not actually resolving surface features. So, the 'hot spot' represents the side of the planet of the planet always facing the sun, so as it revolves around the star you see all sides, but the hot side reads out a higher intensity. The poles are pointed away from the earth so the apparent hot spot is seen best at the equator. Think of it as heat glare. We not really seeing any su

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by tehspuddy ( 801528 )
      The Wikipedia page on HD 189733B [wikipedia.org] has some useful info.

    • Re:Amazing that this is possible at all (Score:5, Interesting)

      by notabaggins ( 1099403 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @10:05AM (#19103731)
      It doesn't seem all that long ago that scientists were merely *inferring* the presence of planets in other solar systems, now we are able to derive a map of one from IR data? Thats an amazing amount of progress for so short a time period.

      More than that, it hasn't been all that long since we were debating how common extra-solar planets might be as we had no data at all. For that matter, it's been all of 77 years since the discovery of Pluto, roughly the range of a human lifespan.

      Maybe it's me but, some days, you just have to sit back and think... wow...

    • Re:Amazing that this is possible at all (Score:4, Informative)

      by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @11:33AM (#19104261) Homepage Journal
      Once the square kilometer array has been constructed, we will be able to get maps of this level of detail on Earth-sized planets at 1 AU from its sun at distances of around 50 light-years or so. If they made it a square mile, they could do the same at a distance of 100 light-years.

      Oh, one small correction. We'd be able to get continuous maps. In other words, you'd be able to see temperature (and atmosphere composition) changes over time.

      (At that point, something like SETI would get potentially much less of an intragalactic lottery and be much more interesting.)

      I honestly don't know what resolution the NASA folks are working at, but the image presented is almost certainly some form of interpolation from available data, as even a super-Jovian planet is far too small to get more than a pixel or two resolution at any distance. I don't quite know what they're calculating, rather than directly observing, but there is simply no way they're getting that kind of resolution with direct measurement. Not of a planet.

      There's nothing wrong with mathematical techniques, and if they're as good as they seem to be, then obviously the square kilometer array will be able to resolve Earth-sized planets at greater resolution than initially expected. Which is good, so long as the methods applied are valid.

      (Let's face it - if anyone quibbles with these results, who do you think NASA would send over there to personally check? The person getting fame and glory for the organisation, or the person who is spoiling the party?)

      • (At that point, something like SETI would get potentially much less of an intragalactic lottery and be much more interesting.)

        Just don't tell anybody this is SETI (common noun) before the funding gets approved. The sibling-rivalry about ETI is insane.

  • Get the paper here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ambitwistor ( 1041236 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @08:40AM (#19103277)
    You can read a preprint [arxiv.org] of the published paper for free. (The published version is here [nature.com], but full text access requires a Nature subscription.)

  • For all the non-americans, those temperatures... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ricky-road-flats ( 770129 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @09:12AM (#19103419) Homepage
    The warmest spot is 927 C, on the equivalent of Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and the coolest region is 'only' 649 C.

  • Good work Data. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nibbler999 ( 1101055 ) <tom_atkinson@fs[ ]org ['fe.' in gap]> on Sunday May 13, 2007 @09:15AM (#19103425) Homepage

    Data from the Spitzer Space Telescope has been used by researchers to make the first-ever map of an extrasolar planet
    Data's really keeping himself busy these days.

  • A Matter of Time... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SeaDour ( 704727 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @09:25AM (#19103483) Homepage
    Seems it's only a matter of time now before we can image a planet with pretty city lights on the dark side.
  • They used a kajillion dollar instrument to find out the side near the sun is hotter than the rest?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      IF you had bothered to RTFA, you'd have known that the side nearest the star isn't quite the hottest. The hotspot is offset slightly; the theory being that there's a very strong circulation of atmosphere going on.

      The wonder isn't that they've found out that one side is hotter than the other, as per your snide comment, but that they can estimate the temperatures of both sides closely, and even locate where the hottest spot is, and do it over interstellar distances. I think that's worth the "kajillion" dollar
    • No they used it to decern from the data available that the hottest area does not make sence unless the surface of the planet has increadibly high winds, or some other force.

      You know, like what scientsits like to do.
  • I think I can see surface.
  • Eheheheeh, yea, that is as said, fantastic for an exclamation - Hot Jupiters !!!

  • Hot Jupiters! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Sunday May 13, 2007 @11:16AM (#19104171)
    That's amazing, batman!

  • I'm confused (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bill_of_wrongs ( 761897 )
    Looking at the map it seems like the polar regions are the coolest. If that is so and the planet is tidal locked shouldn't the far side be cooler ?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cathector ( 972646 )
      the article posits that the far side is still pretty hot for the same reason the big Hot Spot is not exactly facing the star: 6000 MPH (9656 KPH) winds are pushing everything around.

      I'm not clear from the articles if by "coolest spot" they mean the coolest spot on the equator, or they're including the poles.
      • Ok, but why are the winds blowing along the equator and not pole to pole for instance ? I'd think the tidal lock would also take away the mechanisms that cause permanent winds in that direction.
        • good question. well even if it's tidally locked, the sucker is still orbiting the star once every what, 53 hours ? that's still pretty rapid rotation around the polar vector, which i could see giving rise to equatorial winds.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Lexta ( 1093975 )
            Agreed, but i don't really think we need equatorial winds to describe what is going on here. Could it just not be assumed that the planet is spinning on it's axis so it isn't tidally locked thus the hottest point is always going to be marginally off high noon.

            If it really is going around the sun once every 53 hours I think that that's more than enough explanation for the way the temperature stays above 1000 degrees on both sides, which is actually hotter than the poles. If there really were incredibly stron
  • How long before Al Gore makes a movie about it? :D
  • if the surface is whipping around at 6000 MPH, how do they determine it's tidally locked ?

    or maybe it's just probable in view of its proximity to the body it's orbiting.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Lexta ( 1093975 )
      I agree it doesn't make sense AT ALL. If you look at the Global Map of the temperature of the planet where it shows that the hottest point is not directly facing the sun. Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense to suggest that the planet is not tidally locked and is indeed spinning, thus the hottest area moves to the east? If it was due to incredibly fast winds i don't think that there would be such a strong distribution of heat towards the "equator". Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to say that the planet
  • It seems like a little too recently that all the stars out there were thought to have no planets circling them.
  • I knew it had to out there somewhere.
  • Okay, after taking a look at the article, the press release, and the associated images, I have a question about the pattern of recorded temperature on the surface of the planet. If the hot spot on the planet is offset by 30 degrees of the substellar (high noon) point because of a predicted 6,000 mph jetstream to the east, why then does the coolest equatorial temperature show up directly to the east of the hot spot? In other words, why doesn't the long orange tail of mid-temperatures extend to the east of th
  • Can i see it on astronomical map?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close