Alpha Centauri Turns Out Not To Have a Planet After All. At Least, Not Yet (forbes.com) 91
StartsWithABang writes: In 2012, astronomers announced that the nearest star system to us, the Alpha Centauri system, possessed at least one exoplanet around it. A periodic signal that recurred just every 3.24 days was consistent with an Earth-sized exoplanet orbiting and gravitationally tugging on the second largest member of the star system: Alpha Centauri B. That planet, named Alpha Centauri Bb, turns out not to actually be there. A reanalysis of the data shows that a combination of stellar properties and the times at which the observations were made conspired to produce this spurious signal: a signal that goes away if the data is handled correctly. Accounting for everything correctly reveals something else of interest, a periodic 20-day signal, which may turn out — with better observations — to be Alpha Centauri's first exoplanet after all.
Known unknowns (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Known unknowns (Score:4, Insightful)
Since 2012, we have much greater experience with exoplanets, more data, and better algorithms. So a mistake today is less likely than a mistake 4 years ago.
Re:Known unknowns (Score:4, Interesting)
And how many exoplanets discovered to date are the result of handling data incorrectly?
And how has that information influenced scientific research?
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, you mean like NS not sharing methods, RS getting fundamental math wrong, RT cherry picking datasets, avoiding BEST data to exploit hadrut flaws, etc. yes, the manipulation a needed to be a trick cyclist in climastrology is alarming.
Of course! And that's to say NOTHING about the how NNH changed the ASSYMETRICAL PLASMA NETWORK midstream and GN withheld crucial data on ASTROPHYSICAL QUANTUM COUPLING's effect on the RECIPROCATING GRAVIMETRIC MATRIX and PSRT dishonestly sourced the NUCLEONIC DAMPENING CONTROLLER so that it emitted an INVERTED FREQUENCY SIGNAL
Oh the scandal!
Re: (Score:2)
And how many exoplanets discovered to date are the result of handling data incorrectly?
And how has that information influenced scientific research?
Depends on what you mean by "discovered". If you mean any instance where somebody suspects there may be an exoplanet, then somewhere over 50% are false positives. That's probably why they typically require multiple confirmations from different sources before they actually consider something an exoplanet.
Re:Known unknowns (Score:5, Interesting)
It's noisy data. In the plots in TFA, you'll see that the residuals are expressed in meters per second. Meters! It's at the limit of detection even for our best spectrographs.
It's very hard to work with noisy data. If you work on bad data the results get extremely dependent on methods of analysis. How do you prepare the data? Do you reject outlying measurements before you even get to analysis? If so, how? Why reject *this* point, but leave *that* one? Are you doing any filtering of the data (and how)? Any windowing? Smoothing? There's a lot of tricks you can use to make bad data appear acceptable. But in the end, it's garbage in, garbage out. That other signal can very well be an artifact. Or could be real, but not a planet. Or indeed a planet. We have no way of knowing without getting more observations of better quality (which is difficult and costs a lot of $$$).
On the other hand, if the data is good, then any data analysis method will give you consistent results (provided that the method is used correctly).
Re: (Score:1)
And all of this is a good reason for making the data (raw and processed) publicly available so that others can look at it.
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm... Not sure if serious?
I seem to recall a similar attitude. In fact, it's similar enough to be uncanny. "Leave interpreting God's will/word/Bible/signs to the priests. You lay people wouldn't understand."
Deathstar (Score:1)
handling data correctly got rid of the 3 day signal, but another 20 day signal showed up. So they measured it wrong? Or did they measure it wrong the second time?
The first signal was from the still fresh debris of a destroyed planet while it was dispersing. The new signal they've found is from the Deathstar that destroyed it.
The good news is that the Rebel Base is no longer near us so we may be spared. Unless...
The first thing I think of (Score:3)
when I read that summary is: How do we know that *this* time the data was handled correctly?
I am sure that the original researchers thought they were handling the data correctly too....
Re: (Score:1)
It's okay, we are all just simulated cows. Relax, say "moo", and chew some cud.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a flaw in this reasoning since it is based on the idea that a though requires something to carry it.
Lol, wut? There are a number of criticisms, though you'll find this, in particular, is not among them for the simple reason that it is completely incoherent.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes but the Simulation argument has a fatal weakness - a simulation requires some kind of computer and that requires a universe to run it in.. and the computer would require some kind of beings to build and program it. In effect no reduction in complexity or in the need for a 'previous' cause. Also to fully simulate a whole universe it takes more energy to create the simulation than just to have a real universe..
A belief in Gods or Animism is technically identical to the simulation argument but has lower o
Re: (Score:3)
Well, look at it this way ... if it exhibits a periodic dimming, then either something is orbiting it, or some feature of the star has a periodicity which needs to be explained.
People forget that they're mostly inferring based on what they can see of the light from the star dimming in some interval (something transiting in front of it), or in measuring a wobble in the star (again light, suggesting gravity is at work and deflecting the star).
It's not like they can directly photograph it, and we have to be lu
Re: (Score:2)
This one was detected with doppler shift, not dimming.
Re: (Score:2)
Now see, I had you pegged as a grumpy old man with an onion on his belt. The façade has cracked slightly and I see the awe and wonder. Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, don't get me wrong ... I am a grumpy old man with an onion on my belt [slashdot.org].
But for cool stuff like this, I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
It gets better. most of the planets discovered to date, have orbits of their star that is closer to venus than earth.
Re: (Score:3)
The first thing I thought of was "why the fuck is this scientific topic linking to an article from Forbes, of all places?"
Re: (Score:2)
That was my second thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not even Forbes.
its a forbes.com/sites/ page, ie, a blog, though they don't call it that. /sites/
forbes.com is notorious for giving anyone a voice under
Sometimes sane, frequently not.
But being under forbes they also get a little bit of authority that they don't necessarily qualify for.
Re: (Score:1)
I believe they announce a "find" when a certain statistical confidence level is reached.
For example, if the statistical confidence threshold is 95%, then they have to be at least 95% confident, based on statistical analysis of the data, before they formally announce.
But that would also mean that the "new" find, when formally announced, has a 5% chance of being wrong.
If the press or public complains often about false finds, they may decide to raise the threshold. (I don't know the actual current target level
Re: (Score:2)
when I read that summary is: How do we know that *this* time the data was handled correctly?
I am sure that the original researchers thought they were handling the data correctly too....
Nothing is absolutely certain, even mathematical proofs depend on them actually being correct. I'm sure a lot of people here have introduced a new bug when fixing an old one. All we can do is see what stands up to scrutiny...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm very confident that they were careful not to repeat the same mistake the original researches made, so it is at least a less wrong analysis =)
Re: (Score:2)
First thing I thought of was "dammit, the arcologys are already on their way".
Oh good (Score:4, Funny)
We'll finally be able to go our local planning department to see if there's any planning charts or demolition orders for our solar system.
Or at least, see if there's any small furry creatures living there.
Hyperspace Bypass (Score:5, Funny)
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the planet isn't there because the Vogons had erroneously demolished it after having mistaken it for Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the planet isn't there because the Vogons had erroneously demolished it after having mistaken it for Earth?
No it was devoured by an Acturan Mega Goat
Re: (Score:2)
Not a mistake.
It was simply in the way of the same intergalactic highway construction project.
Re:Oh good (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least, see if there's any small furry creatures living there.
Beware of the Leopard
Sid Meiers lied to me. (Score:3)
Either that, or the Transcendence ending was really, really hardcore.
Re: (Score:2)
The drones revolted ... really... hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Look on the bright side, at least you don't have to worry about any damn Mind Worms. Vicious little bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a clever reference I'm missing, or are you just nutty?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a nutty trying to add their own spin to "The Wages of sin is death" from Romans 6:23. How it has anything to do with the possibility of a planet orbiting another star is an open question, as is how "death" = "everlasting torment in the mouth of the beast" too.
Re: (Score:2)
How it has anything to do with the possibility of a planet orbiting another star is an open question
That's easy: Christians hate science and think you're thumbing your nose at God if you pursue studies like this, instead of going to church and giving as much of your money as possible so that they can build athletic centers and buy private jets for their pastors.
Re: (Score:1)
Christians hate science
Wow, that's not flamebait at all, edgelord. Go sharpen your katana and straighten your fedora.
Re: (Score:1)
Mexicans are rapists.
Re: (Score:3)
When the other christians publicly accept those who do so as christian, then those who act that way ARE christian.
Your point, that some christians don't accept them as christian, is quite weak when all the recognized mouthpieces of the religion accept them as christian.
Now, personally, speaking as a non-christian gnostic, I don't consider that were I a christian I would accept many of the spokespeople chosen by the religion as valid christians. But historically, they're closer to christians as defined by t
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are not the arbiter of who qualifies as "Christian". There are over a billion people claiming to be Christian in this world, and your definition is the epitome of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians are people who claim to be Christian, and who practice the religion, regardless of how different it may be from your personal ideal or your interpretation of its roots.
Go read about the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW - If you think the Christian religion is all about money, private jets and big pretty buildings, you are woefully ignorant of the truth. In my view, these things are about as far from the Christian ethic and belief as you can get.
Wrong: No True Scotsman fallacy. Countless churches are like this, especially the ever-more-popular megachurches, and millions of Christians attend these churches and give money to these preachers.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Catholics created the first universities, and have always supported science. Perhaps you should read up on history a bit more before bashing a whole religion (even if the religion is Islam).
Re: (Score:3)
Except that Catholics aren't real Christians, according to all the evangelicals in America.
They also prosecuted Galileo for supporting heliocentrism instead of geocentrism. How is that "always supporting science"? From Wikipedia: "In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be 'foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.'" Doesn't sound very scientific to me. He ended up spending the rest
Re: (Score:2)
Galileo was asked to write a paper giving the evidence for both viewpoints, he instead decided to insult the pope by making a fool use his words in the paper instead. That is hardly not supporting science, it is trying to get Galileo to use the scientific method and give evidence to support his claim instead of just saying it is right.
Perhaps it would be better if you read the whole story before making the church out to be anti science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.[8] He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax.[8] The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact.[8][9] Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point.[8] He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[10][11] It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his finest works, Two New Sciences. Here he summarized the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.[12][13]
The church asked him to support his p
Re: (Score:2)
As for the evangelicals, who the hell cares what they think
Considering they're a huge portion of the American populace, and they vote, I'd say that all Americans should care what they think. We could very well get an evangelical President later this year. We just suffered through 8 years of an evangelical President from 2001-2008.
Re: (Score:2)
All I can say about that is that people who truely follow Jesus should be loving and accepting, not pricks telling others how to live their lives. My Ex's family was much like the former, they kicked their daughter out of their house when she got pregnant and removed all support from her. This is now something Jesus would have advocated, he after all forgave everyone for their sins, never judging.
Re: (Score:2)
What Jesus may or may not have advocated is completely irrelevant to the Christian religion. The religion is defined by its adherents, and their actions. Your ex's family is a good example of how typical Christians are these days (at least in America, things could be different elsewhere).
Exocise this word (Score:1)
It has (maybe) a planet around it, not an exoplanet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he is implying that Alpha Centauri B is gravitationally bound to Sol.
Honey! How about this exoplanet? (Score:2)
Alpha Centauri B is just trying planets on, looking for one that doesn't make her look fat.
Sorting out the data to find... (Score:2)
BB-8 @ Alpha Centauri
Returns policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good luck with that; the mailing address is on the "missing" planet.
Shit! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Investing in real-estate wiped mine also
Not yet??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, I think that may be one of the worst headlines I've seen on Slashdot, and that's saying something. "Not yet" does not mean "we're not sure yet." And "turns out not to have a planet" does not mean "we don't know if it does, but our earlier assumption turns out to be wrong."
From the headline, I assumed that they'd managed to establish that Alpha C. actually did not have a planet, but did have coalescing clouds that would soon (in astronomical terms) become one. That would be an extremely cool discovery! Unfortunately, neither of those things appears to be true (or if it is, we haven't established it).
How about "Reports of Alpha Centauri's Planet Proven to be Premature"? It's even got some nice alliterism to it. And, possibly more importantly, it's got some relationship to the facts (at least as presented in TFS).
Lost in Space... (Score:1)
The crew of the Jupiter II is really lost in space now!
CAP === 'Danger Will Robinson!'
Peer review? (Score:2)
You know, so many problems with science could be solved if peer review was mandatory precondition prior to blabbing to the press.
Re: (Score:2)
But that wouldn't be any fun. Meme first, then have someone check the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody please mod up the parent post. This is an excellent explanation of the peer review process.
Story (Score:1)
Alpha Centaurs, 2016: j/k