• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Exoplanets (Extra-Solar Planets)

punychicken

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Mar 1, 2002
Messages
374
Found this site about extrasolar planets . Its got maps of the sky too so you can plot the stars, or at least stare at a relative section of the sky and wonder!! :D

Here is the chart for the northern hemisphere .

SO! now we know where... how we going to get there?
 
I'm sure everyone saw the new paper reports of Water on other worlds. I see that the biggest signal was from Upsilon Andromedae. What every report said was that this did not indicate life as these were gas giants. I have looked up two sites on the orbits. Report of Exoplanets Found The Lick Observatory

The second Gas giant has a 242 day orbit and lies in an elliptical orbit that extends as far as out at the Earth orbits from the sun and as close as Venus orbits from the sun. Since Upsilon Andromedae is a little larger and a little brighter than the sun then the Habitable Zone moves out a little.

While I accept that life in the atmosphere of gas giants is unlikely, the probability of Gas giants harbouring large rocky satellites is high, perhaps even probable given the small sample of gas giants we have in our own solar systems. I think that this is a very good model for life around other stars. The only down side could be a planet gripped in the intense magnetic field of a Gas giant might not be ideal for life, but then neither is the bottom of the ocean next to a thermal vent.

Any thoughts or am I missing something important here?
 
It is rare that I have an original thought and it looks like I was beaten to this one again. This page details specualtive work being done by research groups into the possibility of life on moons that orbit gas giants that are orbiting in the habitable zone of their star.
 
warm moons

tzb57r said:
It is rare that I have an original thought and it looks like I was beaten to this one again. This page details specualtive work being done by research groups into the possibility of life on moons that orbit gas giants that are orbiting in the habitable zone of their star.
Thank you very much for that link. The most interesting thing to me is the calculated instability of the orbits of moons orbiting epistellar gas giants. (large planets orbiting very near a star.)
Any gas giant orbiting at the distance of the earth from the sun (1AU) would be stable and also have the possibility of liquid water.
The colder ice moons could be artificially heated, to provide water when we get there (if we ever do)
problems would include radiation flux from the larger gas giants, and tidally induced volcanoes on moons too near the primary.

steve b
 
Planet, comets, and a dust cloud found round Fomalhaut - this is thought to resemble the early Solar System.
Dr Wayne Holland, who led the team, which is based at the Royal Observatory of Edinburgh, said the discovery provided the strongest evidence so far that other solar systems existed.

He said: "If that is the case, then why shouldn’t there be planetary systems like our own that contain Earth-like planets?

"Personally speaking, I think it must be odds-on that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and I think one day we will find it - or they will find us."
 
According to the BBC a new planet has been discovered orbiting another star:

'The new planet was discovered orbiting the star Epsilon Eridani which is about 10 light years from Earth. It is one of the lowest mass planets yet found around another star and has by far the longest, largest orbit of any yet seen.

Epsilon Eridani is a star that already has one discovered planet, the size of Jupiter, orbiting the star every five years or so.

By contrast, the new planet, tentatively named Epsilon Eridani C, is roughly a tenth of Jupiter's mass and completes an orbit once every 280 years.'

And the Martian rock is back in the news, with evidence that it really does contain signs of life:

'The strange shapes seen in a rock from Mars that some researchers say are fossilised bacteria really are tiny micro organisms, say American researchers.

But while they are confident the Mars rock contains fossilised life they cannot quite bring themselves to say it comes from the Red Planet, it might be Earthly contamination...

..."We conclude that the nanobodies that are so abundant in ALH84001 are indeed nanobacteria. However whether these bodies originated on Mars, or are Antarctic contamination remains a valid question," say the researchers.'
 
I'd like to know how a planet so close to it's parent sun could have an atmosphere in the first place, perhaps Rynner could enlighten us.
 
It's a gas giant, that's a LOT of gas. It's 4 million miles from it's Sun, which although is close, isn't close enough to make the planet explode. That would require a spark; it is merely super heated, and has probably been this way for a looooong time. This causes the gas to expand, and to escape the atmosphere, which is still held in place by the gravity of the planet.
 
Hubble discovers new planet

Science article from NY Times

Scientists Find Extrasolar Planet With Atmosphere Much Like Jupiter
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD


The Hubble Space Telescope has detected an extensive atmosphere of hydrogen enveloping and escaping from a newfound planet of a distant star, scientists reported yesterday.

The discovery comes as no surprise, astronomers say, but is important nonetheless as apparent confirmation that the extrasolar planets observed so far not only are much like the solar system's Jupiter in size but also are similarly huge gaseous bodies.

In an announcement by the European Space Agency and NASA, a French-led research team said three separate observations by the Hubble telescope in 2001 revealed a hot and puffed-up hydrogen atmosphere surrounding a planet orbiting the star HD 209458, in the constellation Pegasus 150 light-years from Earth. Details are described in today's issue of the journal Nature.

The most astonishing aspect, said the team leader, Dr. Alfred Vidal-Madjar of the Astrophysics Institute of Paris, is that the planet is so close to the searing heat of its parent star that the dense atmosphere reaches temperatures of about 18,000 degrees Fahrenheit and is boiling off and evaporating at a rate of perhaps 10,000 tons a second. The escaping hydrogen was detected extending across 125,000 miles, trailing the planet like a comet's tail.

The scientists said analysis of the observations showed that hydrogen atoms in the extended atmosphere had large velocities relative to the planet. Thus, they concluded, the hydrogen "must be escaping the planetary atmosphere."

As a result, astronomers said, the planet may already have lost a considerable amount of its mass. Much of it may eventually disappear, leaving only a dense core about 10 times the mass of Earth.

"The implication is that planets initially located even closer to their stars would not survive long," Dr. David Charbonneau of the California Institute of Technology said in an accompanying article. That, he added, "agrees with the observed paucity of extrasolar planets in such orbits."

The newfound planet, designated HD 209458b, is one of more than 100 extrasolar planets detected since 1995. Like several other of these planets, HD 209458b is known as a "hot Jupiter," an object that orbits precariously close to its star. These objects presumably formed in the cold outer reaches of the star system and then spiraled into their close orbits.

This particular planet — with a diameter 1.3 times that of Jupiter, and two-thirds its mass — orbits its star at a distance of only four million miles, so close that it makes a complete circuit every 3.5 days. By comparison, Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun, orbits at a distance of 36 million miles, completing the orbit in 88 days. Jupiter, the closest gas giant in the solar system, is almost half a billion miles from the Sun.

The atmosphere study was based on observations by the Hubble telescope's imaging spectrograph. As the planet passed across the face of its star, causing a slight dimming of the star's light, the spectrograph measured how the planet's atmosphere filters that light. During such a transit, the starlight is scattered and acquires a signature from the intervening atmospheric atoms.

The remarkable strength of the light-dimming signals, the basis for inferring a correspondingly extensive atmosphere, surprised some scientists. They advised caution in interpretations until any possible contamination from other light sources could be ruled out.

Besides Dr. Vidal-Madjar, the team included other scientists from the Astrophysics Institute of Paris as well as researchers from the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland and the University of Arizona.

website here
 
This planet must have been pretty large to begin with... and if it is losing atmosphere at this rate, eventually it will be stripped down to the rocky core-
this might be only a few times the size of the Earth but will probably be much more massive- so you would have a red hot high gravity world.
However the jupiter-sized-planet-next-to-the-star scenario is quite common- it happens at 51 Pegasi and 55 Cancri as well - and these hot jupiters do not show much sign of evaporating- so it is likely that an equilibrium can be reached with a hot gaseous atmosphere covering a hot rocky core...
the rate of spontaneous fusion might be higher in such a world, making it an honorary brown dwarf.
And Brown dwarfs last for a very long time, quietly fusing away for 60-100 billion years.
 
planets

am i correct in thinking that the current veiw of the formation of our solar system is that the planets formed from debris orbiting around our sun
this being true why is the,IIRC van allen belt not forming into a planet or at least becoming lumpy,if the suns gravity is afecting it surly it would become lumpy at some point if the suns gravity isnt afecting it why isnt it drifting out into the void i would think that if the universe is expanding we would move away from these asteriods debris whatever they are.
why do they remain in orbit?
 
The things in the asteroid belt are too cool to stick togetherany more, perhaps? Our planets were formed while everything was still hot, were they not?
 
em pluto and the rest of the outer planets seemed to do ok
that still dosnt explain why they arnt drifting away or becoming lumpy
 
The planets were supposedly formed by a process of accretion: 2 objects collide and the larger one goes away with a little more mass, collides again, gains more mass and so on.

When the solar system was first forming I assume all the bits that eventually formed into planets were scattered in a totally un-ordered manner and therefore these collisions were frequent. There were also, of course, many, many more objects out there than there are today.

Nowadays everthing is fixed in nice little orbits and despite sci-fi depictions of spacecraft dodging around asteroids, there's actually thousands of miles between them. So collisions are extremely rare and only likely to happen if a passing comet perturbs an object's orbit.

I think.
 
size

wouldnt two objects colliding just make lots of little objects scattering debis in all directions deminishing the size of the original two objects not somehow enlarging one of them this would only happen if a small object hit a large object with gravity to hold down the pieces
 
Two objects, no matter their size, will stick together due to gravity if the 'collision' is soft enough. A violent collision would cause bits to fly off in all directions, but, given time, they will end up 'sticking' to other bits'n'pieces in similar orbits.

The asteroids don't get the chance to stick together because their orbits are always being affected by Jupiter.

The objects beyond the gas giant planets just don't meet up often enough to start accreting [sp?] - Pluto, although nominally a planet, is actually pretty small.

(PS Tin Finger: the occasional attempt at punctuation would make your posts more readable :D )
 
I was under the impression that the plantes formed while all this matter was still molten and whanging around the sun while it was a baby. Including the outer ones, unless they are magic planets of some description?

Pluto's just wobbling on the line that divides 'planets' from 'junk' anyway.
 
And how many planets are there in our solar system these days? Wasn't there talk of another planet beyond Pluto? Has it been officially recognised? What's its name?

Carole
 
If there's something bigger than Jupiter, surely it would have been detected by now?

Carole
 
Indeed. A brown dwarf could lurk out there, invisible amongst the comets and other debris. We would have to look for its pull on Pluto or other massive objects, which could be tricky to detect.

I believe the move to reclassify Pluto as a Kuiper Belt objecct was largely a beat up, and dropped fairly quickly after the backlash.

Still, they have identified an object of similar mass in the Kuiper belt.
 
carole said:
If there's something bigger than Jupiter, surely it would have been detected by now?

Carole
they should have if there is anything nearby that large. Gravity bends light, any massive object would cause this. They have discovered several extrasolar planets, I think the count is past 100 so far, if they can detect them, I'm sure they'd have no problem finding large, nearby planets or objects. As for brown dwarfs, they don't exist yet. the oldest stars in the universe are still white dwarves, to have a brown dwarf would imply that the star is older than the universe and that can't be possible.
 
No, that is black dwarfs, Search.
Brown Dwarfs are gaseous bodies, similar to but larger than Jupiter, massing 13 to 100 times Jupiter's size, which produce massive amounts of heat mostly by deuterium fusion but are not hot enough to start hydrogen proton fusion and become red dwarfs.

There are probably as many brown dwarfs as there are other stars, if not more, but they are only really detectable when orbiting another star, and usually only by gravitational effects.
 
Eburacum45 said:
No, that is black dwarfs, Search.
Brown Dwarfs are gaseous bodies, similar to but larger than Jupiter, massing 13 to 100 times Jupiter's size, which produce massive amounts of heat mostly by deuterium fusion but are not hot enough to start hydrogen proton fusion and become red dwarfs.

There are probably as many brown dwarfs as there are other stars, if not more, but they are only really detectable when orbiting another star, and usually only by gravitational effects.
ehh, semantics. I'd call what you call a brown dwarf a planet, albeit a really large planet, tetering on that line between star and planet, it's still a planet (lol, this sounds like the "should we call PLuto a planet" debate). They have discovered extrasolar planets using several methods for detecting them. occultation is one of the most frequently used methods for discovering extrasolar planets, obviously it wouldn't work for hidden planets near or around the solar system very well, several other methods could. If it was there we would've (or should've) found it by now :spinning:.
 
The current New Scientist (no. 2395) has an article postulating another possible explanation for the birth of the solar system, involving the X-wind. (Article unavailable online.)

Briefly, dust and gas close to the sun is heated and ionized, then gets pulled towards the young sun along magnetic field lines. The sun's magnetic field is spinning, and 'pinches' together at a so-called 'X-region' due to the flow of charged particles in the field. The material that collects at the X-region is molten, and 'blobs' of this molten material are blown into space by the solar wind, with the smallest -presumably least dense- material going the farthest. If I understand the box-out and the diagram correctly...
 
There is an interesting article on a potential brown dwarf gravitationally linked to our sun here .

I also don't believe that nature has sharp boundaries for the size of macroscopic objects. I think that asteroids/comets drift upwards in size to what we call planets that and in turn drift upwards in size until they are what we call stars. The astronomical union is trying to standardise on nomenclature of objects i.e. when does a very large brown dwarf become a red dwarf.

If there's something bigger than Jupiter, surely it would have been detected by now?

'space,' it says 'is big. really big. you wouldn't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it a long way down the road to the chemists but that just peanuts to space. listen...' and so on.

Douglas Adams - The hitchhikes guide to the Galaxy

And Adams was underplaying just how big the little bit of space near us really is!!
 
That's a fantastic feature on space.com... :D

would there be a slight wobble on a binary system such as that, if observed from other stars?
 
The BBC article is a bit light weight for this forum. Here is the space.com version of the same story. This article also points out that this is a good candidate system for Earth like inner planets also existing in the habitable zone. The key thing is the circular orbit, although this far in towards the star would it disrupt the formation of inner planets in the same way that a planet cannot form between Mars and Jupiter in our solar system.

While rummaging for this I found another story about extra solar planets I had missed earlier here . This is a gas giant orbiting a star that is part of a tight binary pair. It is further out than Mars but it is a larger star, which may put this gas giant in the habitable zone for this star. It does not require a huge leap of imagination to see a Europa like moon in orbit of a gas giant in the habitable zone covered in deep oceans and teaming with life.
 
Back
Top