James Webb Space Telescope Discovers Its First Exoplanet (space.com) 21
The James Webb Space Telescope has discovered its first new exoplanet, TWA 7b -- a young, low-mass planet about 100 times the mass of Earth, making it the lightest planet ever directly imaged beyond the solar system. Space.com reports: TWA 7b was discovered in the debris rings that surround the low-mass star CE Antilae, also known as TWA 7, located around 111 light-years from Earth. CE Antilae is a very young star, estimated to be around just a few million years old. If that seems ancient, consider the sun, a "middle-aged" star, is around 4.6 billion years old.
[...] The disk of CE Antilae is divided into three distinct rings, one of which is narrow and bounded by two empty "lanes" mostly devoid of matter. When imaging this ring, the JWST spotted an infrared-emitting source, which the team of astronomers determined is most likely a young exoplanet. They then used simulations that confirmed the formation of a thin ring and a "hole" exactly where this planet is positioned, corresponding to JWST observations. The research has been published in the journal Nature.
[...] The disk of CE Antilae is divided into three distinct rings, one of which is narrow and bounded by two empty "lanes" mostly devoid of matter. When imaging this ring, the JWST spotted an infrared-emitting source, which the team of astronomers determined is most likely a young exoplanet. They then used simulations that confirmed the formation of a thin ring and a "hole" exactly where this planet is positioned, corresponding to JWST observations. The research has been published in the journal Nature.
WRONG! Shame on all the misreporting (Score:1)
Who the fuck is writing their science stories ?!
This is NOT the first exoplanet discovered by JWST.
"
Jan 11, 2023
Jeremy Rehm
A team led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, has confirmed the discovery of an exoplanet — a planet orbiting another star — by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope.
"
Source: https://www.jhuapl.edu/news/news-releases/230111b-nasa-webb-and-apl-identify-telescope-first-rock
Re: (Score:3)
The Nature paper says it's the first *protoplanet* ever detected. They show up as empty ring within the dust disk of a young star, but the originating planet never ere observed directly until JWST brought enough sensitivity.
Re:WRONG! Shame on all the misreporting (Score:5, Informative)
I know English is a very nuanced language but before writing WRONG in all caps it's worth investigating the differences between stories.
The JWST just discovered its first new exoplanet. "New". TWA 7b was previously unknown. The JWST has never discovered an exoplanet before.
By comparison your story is about LHS 475b, a planet that was discovered by TESS, not by JWST. The discovery was "confirmed" by JWST. That is also why it was picked as an early target for JWST, scientists were reasonably sure the planet was there from the TESS transit data which is where it was discovered.
"discovery" "confirmation" and "new" all have specific meanings. There is nothing wrong with the science reporting here.
Re: (Score:2)
"discovery" "confirmation" and "new" all have specific meanings. There is nothing wrong with the science reporting here.
All we really know at this point is there is a discovery about rings in space and it's not about Uranus.
Re: (Score:2)
The science reporting is WRONG here.
Re: (Score:2)
The science reporting is WRONG here.
Doubling down because "discovery" and "confirmation" do not mean different things to you? In your article, LHS 475b was confirmed by JWST. From your own article [jhuapl.edu]:
The researchers focused on the rocky world after carefully reviewing targets of interest from NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), which could only hint at the planet’s existence because of the limitations of its cameras and the small signal from the planet. Webb’s Near Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec), however, clearly confirmed the planet after two observations last summer of it transiting, or passing in front of its star.
This article is an exoplanet being "discovered" by JWST as it was not previously known.
Re: (Score:2)
No, doubling down because ""discovery" "confirmation" and "new" all have specific meanings."
JPL, 2023:
"A team led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, has confirmed ***the discovery of an exoplanet [...] by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope.***"
“The ***discovery of an Earth-sized planet in Webb’s first year*** paves the way for [...]”
So JPL told us in 2023 that JWST had discovered an exoplanet. No "confirm".
The su
Re: (Score:2)
So JPL told us in 2023 that JWST had discovered an exoplanet. No "confirm".
Dude, can you read? The actual quote:
A team led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, has confirmed the discovery of an exoplanet — a planet orbiting another star — by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope. Formally logged as LHS 475b . . .
Not sure why you decided to shorten the sentence. JWST confirmed the discovery made previously. It is in YOUR OWN quote but you said "No 'confirm.' YOUR OWN article says LHS 475b was discovered by "NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), which could only hint at the planet’s existence because of the limitations of its cameras and the small signal from the planet." Again this is in YOUR OWN article.
No "New".
So you are confirming you cannot bother to rea
Re: (Score:2)
"A team led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, has confirmed the discovery of an exoplanet — a planet orbiting another star — by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope. Formally logged as LHS 475b"
That parses as "A team has confirmed ( the discovery of an exoplanet BY JWST)."
It CANNOT be parsed as JWST (has confirmed the discovery of an exoplanet).
And the quote you removed confirms (sic) th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100 times mass of earth is light? (Score:1)
Saturn is 80 times the mass of earth , is that considered light too?
Re:100 times mass of earth is light? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, a planet imaged outside of our solar system the size of Saturn would be amazingly low-mass.
Since "light" (low-mass) has no fucking absolute meaning, it requires some kind of reference.
You applied Earth (probably since it was referenced in multiples of Earth's mass).
They applied "the normal size of directly imaged extra-solar planets."
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it's being reported wrong, and they were really talking about density. A planet could have 100x the Earth's mass but be far less dense, like a gas giant. In that co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Given a big enough body of water, it will float.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and so would Saturn. Of course, in Saturn's case you'd have to ignore the fact that it's a gas giant although it does have a small rocky core surrounded by a layer of liquid metallic hydrogen.
Re: (Score:2)
That threw me too, so I looked it up. From Space.com [space.com]:
With an estimated mass of around 100 times that of Earth or 0.3 times the mass of Jupiter, TWA 7b is ten times lighter than any exoplanet previously directly imaged.
(emphasis mine)