Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

The Exoplanets That Never Were 31

Posted by samzenpus from the planetary-false-positive dept.
StartsWithABang writes In 1992, scientists discovered the first planets orbiting a star other than our Sun. The pulsar PSR B1257+12 was discovered to have its own planetary system, and since then, exoplanet discoveries have exploded. But before that, in 1963, decades of research led to the much-anticipated publication and announcement of an exoplanet discovered around Barnard's star, the second-closest star system to Earth. Unfortunately, it turned out to be spurious, and it took years to uncover, an amazing story which is only now fully coming to light.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Exoplanets That Never Were More

The Exoplanets That Never Were

Comments Filter:

  • So close, and yet so far away. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @08:34PM (#47877005) Journal
    You know, we're right on the verge of possessing the technology of an advanced, universe exploring, sentient life form.

    Keep that in mind for perspective when the next beheading video hits the internet.

  • Red dwarfs form from so little matter (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @08:35PM (#47877009)
    I'm not surprised that there are no planets. Red dwarfs form from very small amounts of matter, and don't have the luminosity or stellar wind to stop the in-fall of matter into the central star. I don't doubt they can form, the same way double stars form, but the odds are lower. Just a lot less initial material to start with.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by radtea ( 464814 )

      I'm not surprised that there are no planets.

      Given that we've discovered planets everywhere we never expected planets to be, being "not surprised" at not finding planets is pretty weird. The damned things are everywhere!

      • Exoplanets are everywhere and the astronomers keep jacking up all our classic science fiction novels set in the neighborhood by revealing the actual layout of the systems...

    • Given that Red Dwarves (Dwarfs?) are like large jupiters and jupiter has moons, why would a Red Dwarf not have moon-like objects? Whether we call them planets or moons is just a matter of classification.

      • In the case of Jupiter, the original gas cloud is falling toward the Sun. Once the Sun becomes a protostar, the solar wind and light pressure pushes the infalling gas back out, away from the Sun, and toward Jupiter. A red dwarf generates far less wind and light pressure, and there is less stuff to start with. It doesn't mean that planets can't form, it just lowers the probability.
      • If we ignited Jupiter, what would happen to the moons orbiting it? Hmm, they would be consumed. That's why red dwarves (hi ho!) have no planets around them.

  • Amazing story (Score:4, Insightful)

    by manu0601 ( 2221348 ) on Wednesday September 10, 2014 @11:36PM (#47877687)
    I am not sure "amazing story" is something else than marketing here :-)

  • Science is full of stories like this.
    Someone presents a result that catches the imagination. They achieve "great scientific stature".
    Someone else quesions the result. They are pilloried while the "consensus" sides with the person of "great scientific stature".
    But if there is persistence, sometimes the person of "great scientific stature", and by extension, the "consensus" is proven wrong.

    The lesson: "consensus" is meaningless in science. It is desctructive, politically-driven artifact that inhibits the d

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close