First Image of a Planet Orbiting a Sun-Like Star 131
Several readers including houbou and DigitumDei sent links to what may be the first-ever image of a planet orbiting a sun-like star (research paper). The giant planet, the mass of 8 Jupiters, orbits its star at 330 AU, or 11 times the distance to Neptune's orbit. If the imaged object does turn out to be a planet — and it's not certain it is — then theories of planet formation may have to be adjusted. "The bulk of the material from which planets might form is significantly closer to the parent star... The outermost parts of such disks wouldn't contain enough material to assemble a Jupiter-mass planet at the distance from the star... at which the Toronto team found the faint object."
ARGH! (Score:5, Funny)
Damn you, Google Star View! There IS such a thing as privacy, you know!
Re:ARGH! (Score:4, Funny)
Google has no problem with protecting a star's privacy as long as they file out a request. Google has already sent out a message discussing their privacy policy. Considering that this star is 472 light years away, Google might have to update their system in about 944 years.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"What do you mean you've never been to Alfa Centauri? Oh, for heavens sake mankind, it's only four light years away. I'm sorry but if you can't bother to take an interest in local affairs then ..." HHGG
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but what is more worrying if a planet can't be made at this distance it must either be the Vogons or the Borgs, and in either case we're fucked.
Re:ARGH! (Score:5, Funny)
Planet ----> . O <---- Star
Where's the orbit? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
At that distance, its year would be many hundreds of years long. It'll take a long time to see any change in position visually.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, assuming the object is orbiting the star, and using some quick and very dirty calculations based on information in the article, it has an orbital period of between 6 and 7 thousand years. Even if we were viewing at a right angle to its orbital trajectory it would take years to see it move at all and many more to determine its orbit with any certainty.
Re: (Score:2)
They are open to that idea. From the article:
[...] there's a small chance that the object, small enough to be classified as a planet, merely resides in the same part of the sky as the star but is not gravitationally bound to it.
Re: (Score:2)
...and yet where's the second pic to prove that it orbits?
How could a second pic prove that?
Looks like a smudge (Score:1)
Nope. Cheetoh."
Don't worry, we won't have to revise any theories (Score:3, Funny)
The Toronto people are just confused as to why the planet isn't orbiting around them.
Re:Don't worry, we won't have to revise any theori (Score:1, Funny)
Low-bandwidth version in case of slashdotting (Score:5, Funny)
All Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Ridiculous! That picture is completely distorted! What paper are you looking at?
It was a lot more like this:
`O
Re:All Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Or maybe like this?
.
O
This star must have a high rate of rotation (Score:3, Funny)
As you can see from the nearly egg-like shape as the centrifugal forces compress the equator.
And if you observe that the planet orbits below the elliptical, you will have to agree that the planet was a rogue that was captured long after the star's formation.
Re: (Score:2)
You are joking, aren't you? Centrifugal force makes it get larger around the equator, not smaller.
Re:This star must have a high rate of rotation (Score:5, Funny)
The star was spinning so fast that we all heard a "whoooooosh" through the vast expanse of space.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The star was spinning so fast that we all heard a "whoooooosh" through the vast expanse of space.
You are joking, aren't you? Sound doesn't travel through the vacuum of space.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are joking, aren't you? Sound doesn't travel through the vacuum of space.
Oh, that's what they meant. I thought they just meant screams didn't travel in the vacuum of space.
I'm pretty sure I just heard another "whooooooosh" coming from that sector.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
or this :-O
in case the theory goes Bang (big bang, big bada bum).
we'd better hope... (Score:4, Funny)
If the imaged object does turn out to be a planet â" and it's not certain it is â" then theories of planet formation may have to be adjusted.
Whereas if this thing that is bigger than 8 Jupiters turns out to be something other than a planet, we may have some other theories to adjust. But I, for one, welcome our giant space traveling overlords!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Both of these could fly to space of course, but the take off and accelerating to orbital speed would mean that in the context of a single game session, it'd be same as losing the unit. So, to simulate this, just disband the unit (there was disband in Starcraft, wasn't there?).
Re: (Score:2)
The Astronomical term is a Super Jupiter, which describes a gas giant of four times or larger than Jupiter in our solar system.
A Jupiter sized planet or larger that is under 1 AU orbit from it's star is called a Hot Jupiter, because it will be heated up from it's star's heat.
Astronomers like [uncyclopedia.org] Carl Sagan [uncyclopedia.org] came up with those terms, including billions and billions and billions ever before McDonalds [uncyclopedia.org] copyrighted that term to describe the number of people that get fat or unhealthy from eating at their fast food joi
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, I think I can say this with certainty, Carl Sagan really doesn't care about those domain names.
Re: (Score:2)
Googol! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and yes. It was Googol [wikipedia.org] but it is also spelled Google and Googel in various languages. They all mean almost the same thing, ten to the power of a hundred. That is how many web pages Google.com claims it can handle, that is a large number used to count stars, and used in math and science.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks mate, I'll add them to the article.
Old news... (Score:1, Funny)
I've seen plenty of pictures of Earth.
Re:Old news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
You're one of Gov. Palin's kids, aren't you?
Theories of planet formation may have to be adjust (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that will be the case for many many decades/centuries, considering a current sample size of 9 +/- planets big enough to wobble their stars enough that we can see with current tech.
I suspect the more we resolve and catalog and the more we get direct observations of planets, the more the theories will change.
Re:Theories of planet formation may have to be adj (Score:1)
Do you really think so? I wonder if that principle applies to other things too. Like if astronomers keep observing galaxies then theories of galaxy formation will evolve too.
Re:Theories of planet formation may have to be adj (Score:5, Interesting)
1) In the 1700's some French guy starts a list of objects that are in the sky that resemble comets, but are not. They are assumed to be relatively nearby objects. One has the name M31.
2) In the early 1900's some American guy comes along and looks a little closer at those objects, and finds not only are they not nearby, but they are entire islands of stars, and we live in one of those islands too! And M31 ends up being over 2 million light years away.
3) In the later part of the 20th century, an astronomical space based telescope, discovers the background variations in the left overs of the big bang, that led to the eventual location of these things now called 'galaxies'
Charles Messier, Edwin Hubble, and the COBE satellite would like to have a discussion with you about the scientific method.
In other words, yes. The theories on planet formation will change the larger the sample size gets. Just the same way the awareness and eventual theories of galaxies changed as they were observed more often and became part of a larger sample size - the known visible universe
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
And in the early 21st century, observations at the LHC and a new binocular radio telescope show conclusively that several assumed constants (Hubble constant, gravitational constant, age of universe, etc) were actually way off, and the stars are all really etched into a dome circling the earth about 300 miles up.
Re: (Score:2)
First? (Score:5, Interesting)
This [wikipedia.org] is no longer the "first" directly observed extrasolar planet? What value of "first" is are we using now?
Re:First? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:First? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay but what about "Blue marble"? That predates this effort, and clearly shows a planet which is known to orbit a sun-like star.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no expert, in fact I don't follow this stuff closely at all, but it was my understanding that everytime they find a 'planet orbiting another star' it turns out not to actually be a planet. At least everyone I've seen turns out that way after a little while.
Since you reference a wikipedia article, I can only assume that if I am correct, the article is wrong, like many wikipedia entries. However I fully accept that I may be wrong as most of the higher profile wikipedia entries are fairly accurate, which
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. There have been a few false positives, but there have been plenty of 'confirmed' sightings of extra-solar planets.
Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
... that's no moon ...
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)
... that's no moon ...
We've already established that. It's a planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars reference folks. *Woosh*
I hereby rename that franchise "No-Moon Wars".
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe. They'll probably come up with some other bogus classification like mega planet or inert star or something.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
... that's no moon ...
We've already established that. It's a planet.
And I think you just established that you totally missed the reference in the original post. Go back watch some of your (hopefully) older DVDs and see if you get the reference :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've already established that. It's a planet.
Tell that to Pluto, your insensitive clod!!!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I find your lack of original conversation disturbing...
http://xkcd.com/307/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok.
That's no planet [wikia.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
umm... IMO it should be called dwarfoid.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, what is it called when something is too *big* to be a planet?
Rush Limbaugh. Har har.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gemini Telescope and guide stars (Score:5, Informative)
Just to flesh this out and offer a few corrections, as someone who works around the AO LGS at Gemini (and Keck):
Tomduck is correct that an adaptive optics (AO) system uses deformable optics to bring a guide star into sharp focus, and the rest of the scene with it. He fails to mention that this process is in no way inherently dependent upon the use of a laser. Indeed, when a bright natural star is close enough to the target to be used, it is in many ways preferable to using the laser. (For one, the brightness of natural stars tends to be pretty constant, and not subject to the usual game of "so, how many watts shy of nominal power are we tonight?" :) So Gemini's AO system, Altair (read all about it here [harvard.edu]) is quite often used with natural guide stars (NGS).
A NGS can, incidentally, also be used for guiding - keeping the telescope pointed correctly - as its name implies. This isn't the case for a laser guide star (LGS), which in fact has absolutely no use for pointing, since the laser is fastened to, and aligned with, the telescope. It's a horrible misnomer. :( LGS come into play because the field of view of large (8-10m) telescopes is narrow enough that NGS are frequently not visible at the same time as science targets.
There are three large telescopes on Mauna Kea with LGS capabilities - Keck II has an older-technology sodium dye laser (pumped/amped by about six YAGs), Gemini has a solid-state (crystal) laser, and I'm not certain what Subaru has as I haven't worked with them yet. The W.M. Keck Observatory has funding to put a laser on Keck I also, but I'm unsure when it'll be operational. All of the lasers propagate at around 589nm for sodium fluorescence (this is coincidentally about the same frequency put out by the low-pressure sodium streetlights used in the towns on the island, so astronomers can pretty much ignore this frequency).
Each beam is about 8-12W with an objective lens diameter of typically 30-50cm, spreading a little as it goes up. Not enough power to punch holes in stuff, but enough that the FAA requires aircraft spotters to be positioned outside each observatory to make sure they don't blind the pilots of flights between the west coast and Australia/New Zealand. I've done this work sporadically since 2005 at Keck and 2006 at Gemini, so I have tons of pictures and time-lapse video... here's one [lava.net] of the Gemini beam with me ruining the picture by sitting in front of it.
Along with the FAA, AFSC (that's Air Force Space Command, not the American Friends Service Committee) is rather particular about us not shining the bright lights into the sensitive sensors of keyholes and such things. We look up, they look down, etc.
By the way, if there are any Farkers on the Big Island of Hawaii who think this kind of work sounds like fun, it looks like Keck has openings [keckobservatory.org]. It's temp-agency work, and probably the coldest, highest-altitude temp-agency work you'll ever get...
Something to keep in mind (Score:2)
If you're of the opinion that we'll only find "life as we know it" on an Earth-like planet orbiting a Sun-like star in the habitable zone, then we haven't really got any data on how common their configuration is, so its a complete mystery how many civilizations like ours there are out there. Of course, if you're of the opinion that "as we know it" really isn't that important, then that's not entirely relevant.
Oh, and here's my exoplanet rant [quantumg.net] that I post every time one of these stories hits Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as a truly "Earth-like" rocky planet being discovered around a star of spectral classes between F & M type stars, I think it may be a bit longer than 2012 before that can happen.
Mind you, telescope precision and monitoring Doppler variations in radial velocities of stars are improving significantly (where most of these "discoveries" are happening), it would take some very hard precision instruments to be able to detect an "Earth-like" mass object. Smaller planets thus far identified are still at
Planetary Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Since all of the current theories about planetary formation around stellar objects consist of a statistical sample of one, I'd like to hope that Astro-physicists would be able to come up with some better theories when that sample size is increased.
One thing we do know from stellar observations is that binary or multiple star systems are much more common than solitary stellar systems like we have here around Sol. Even from observation of stellar nurseries it is also apparent that the physical structures that give rise to stars are born in highly complex environments of which our Solar System was likely a rather bland or even "ideal laboratory" example of how planetary systems were created.
Given the distance (330 AU... about 1/10th the same distance as between the Sun and Neptune) and if I were "betting" on what would be found with a planetary probe going to this star system, I think you would find nearly a complete planetary system around this gas giant as well, with this "planet" simply being in the Continuum between O-class blue giant stars and grains of sand.
Of course this observation of discovering a secondary system is based upon a sample size of 4 gas giants in our own solar system that all seem to have their own satellite systems as well. That is more like shooting fish in a barrel to make this sort of prediction.
Seriously, other than a highly simplistic planetary creation model, I fail to see what huge changes in formation theory this will actually make, other than to give more pause to think about how complex the stellar formation process might be.
Re:Planetary Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I meant that Neptune was 1/10th the distance as this object. Yeah, I screwed up here. Thanks for pointing that out.
Re:Planetary Science - Other outer objects (Score:2)
Right now, it being 472 light years away (29,849,752 AU! or, 111 trips from Sol to Proxima Centauri...) we don't even know if it is a dual sun or not. Let alone what local conditions are like.
The heck with the Delta Quadrant! This this thing is FAR AWAY.
So personally, 330AU may not be irrational for a large solar sys
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The short version, IIRC goes something like this:
* Star forms. The remaining disk around the star consists mainly of grains of dust, which slowly clump together under their own gravity.
* As clumps get bigger, they create a gravitational "wake" of particulates in the vicinity of their orbit. The wa
Re: (Score:2)
Since all of the current theories about planetary formation around stellar objects consist of a statistical sample of one, I'd like to hope that Astro-physicists would be able to come up with some better theories when that sample size is increased.
With enough detail and enough volume to have from all stages of the formation perhaps, but since we understand gravity quite well I think simulation is the key here. Observation will tell you something about the realm of possible planets, but I think it would take us a very long time to get accurate models based off observation.
Re: (Score:2)
What we don't know here are the starting conditions that exist within a "typical" stellar nursery, or even what variables there might be in terms of typical stellar systems for metal-rich gaseous clouds (of the kind that create rocky planets like the Earth).
Yeah, we have a pretty good understanding of gravity and even enhanced understanding of subtle variations caused by Relativity thanks to Einstein (something often missing from simulations due to complexity of the calculations), but it is these additional
Re: (Score:2)
Can it just be that due to the gravitational pull of some other system (say another star which went past close enough) pulled the planet out?
Not a planet at all. (Score:4, Funny)
If you look closely you can clearly see that it's just the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) in "outer orbit" doing a routing scientific study. Nothing to see here, move along.
Neptune? (Score:1)
roughly 11 times Neptuneâ(TM)s average distance from the sun..
As much as I'd like to quantify things in reference to Neptune, isn't there a planet your readers are more likely to associate with?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How many football fields is that?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=330+astronomical+units+in+yards [google.com]
330 Astronomical Units = 5.39887795 × 10^13 yards
I'd proceed further, but I don't know where you live.....is that American Football, Australian Rules Football, or Soccer?
120yd for American football
180yd for Australian football
100-130yd for Soccer (110-120yd for International matches)
Assuming American football: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=5.39887795+%C3%97+10%5E13+divided+by+120&btnG=Search [google.com]
4.49906496 × 10^11 f
Re: (Score:1)
There once was a planet Pluto in our solar system.
There no longer is.
There is only 1 thing that is able to destroy an entire planet, the Deathstar. Say no to active SETI!!!
I am sorry, summary is not entirely correct (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were going to say it was not entirely correct because it was not the first picture of a planet orbiting a sun-like star.
Almost every picture I've ever taken is of a planet orbiting a sun-like star, excepting those pictures I've taken of the night sky. The Earth is, in fact, a planet and as the Sun is very sun-like indeed, the Earth is a planet orbiting a sun-like star.
So what planets have we seen (Score:3, Insightful)
orbiting stars that are totally unlike the sun?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The majority of extra-solar planets so far discovered have been massive, extremely close orbitting bodies; so called 'hot-jupiters', usually 10-20x the mass of our own Jupiter, so they're verging more on being Brown Dwarves than planets.
The reason for this is that the primary way of discovering an extra solar planet is by measuring the orbital perburbation that the planet causes on it's parent sun - the star seems to wobble or oscillate as it tracks. The secondary way is to measure the change in instensity
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This one: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/04/29/first-exoplanet-imaged/ [discovermagazine.com]
It orbits a brown dwarf. A very non-sunlike star.
i am waiting for an image like this (Score:1)
http://z.about.com/d/space/1/0/c/e/earth_moon.jpg [about.com]
of an extrasolar planet. I think it would be amazing and hopefully spur people's imaginations to see beyond themselves.
Any astronomers out there care to speculate on the feasibility getting an image like this?
Re: (Score:2)
Getting an image like that from a planet orbiting different star would require "collecting photons" for a long long time. Surface details would take even longer, as the rotation of the planet would need to be taken into account too. And it would always be an image of a single planet, and perhaps a separate image for a moon orbiting it, but getting them in the same picture would be just "photoshopping" the images together.
And the image would not really be a photo or a snapshot, but instead made "artificially
Why so puzzling? (Score:1)
I don't understand why this would be so hard to understand. Many stars are found in binary or even trinary system. The closest stars (Alpha, Beta and Proxima Centauri)
beautiful photo (Score:3)
This photo is just beautiful. Congratulations to the astronomers involved!
Easy answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How big is the star? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Weren't you one of the Little Rascals?"
Re: (Score:2)
"You hear all of this 'it works this way' crap in science, only a year later to hear 'oh it doesn't really work that way, we were right but not really right and now we're definately right'"
You rarely see widely accepted theories in science simply replaced. Instead they are refined. When a theory is widely accepted it is because it fits the evidence. If new evidence leads to a new theory than that new theory also has to explain the
The underlying models actually change a lot (Score:2)
That's not really true, strictly speaking, because "more detailed and accurate" sounds like mere refinement, and that's not really what happens. More accurately, tomorrow's theories are broadly consistent with those of yesterday (they have to be, because they need to support the same observations), but the underlying models can be utterly different from today to tomorrow.
For example, th
Re: (Score:2)
While underlying models do change (Caloric fluid for example), quantum and classical physics are a bad example of this. For the things classical physics deals with, it is still perfectly valid, still taught, and still heavily used. Quantum answers questions left by classical physics, and it gives rules in places where classical does not apply, but quantum physics is just as useless for predicting ballistic trajectories. It's like saying America's Geography replaced Europe's.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, you have all these people being very open that we're still looking for the GUT, and you're using the lack of a GUT as your example for the models changing. I don't agree with that, and I'd say you're on a tangent with your post. The models for QM and Relativity aren't really changing. QM and Relativty are two theories that are very very solid.
Science doesn't know everything. For example, there is no GUT
Re: (Score:2)
It could very well be a Star!
It will be if it wins the next American Idol!