Quantcast
Tor Forge

Science fiction. Fantasy. The universe. And related subjects.
RSS

Latest Posts

› archive

Latest Comments

› show all

Hot Bookmarks


Blog Archive


posted Monday September 15, 2008 11:05pm EDT

Alien Worlds

Mike Brotherton

For the first time astronomers have obtained an image of a likely planet orbiting a distant but sun-like star.  Like a lot of claims back in the 1990s about repeated “first” discoveries of black holes, there are a number of issues to consider about these early announcements.  We’re going to see a lot more “first” planet images of various sorts in years to come, and have already seen a couple around low-mass brown dwarf stars.  Still, this is wicked cool and a hint of a flood of information to come about planets in our galaxy.  Let’s see the picture. gemini planet

The big thing in the middle is the sun-like star, some 500 light-years away from us.  The faint speck circled in red is our purported exoplanet, thought to be some 330 astronomical units (AU) from its sun (Earth is 1 AU from the sun, and Jupiter is 5 AUs).  The bar on the bottom left shows an angle of one arcsecond, which is 1/3600 of a degree.  The official caption for the image reads:

Gemini adaptive optics image of 1RSX J160929.1-210524 and its likely ~8 Jupiter-mass companion (within red circle). This image is a composite of J-, H- and K-band near-infrared images. All images obtained with the Gemini Altair adaptive optics system and the Near-Infrared Imager (NIRI) on the Gemini North telescope. Photo Credit and Press Release: Gemini Observatory.

First we have what the astronomers call the “phone number” of the star, based on its position in the sky.  Easy to say and remember, isn’t it?  Second, the image isn’t actually an optical picture; it’s a pseudocolor image based on near-infrared colors.  One reason for using the infrared is that our adaptive optics system work in the infrared, and these adaptive optics systems are what let us create such sharp images using ground-based telescopes.  Without these high-tech optics the faint light of the little speck of the planet would be smeared over an area larger than the red circle, and much harder to detect, as well as more difficult to distinguish from its sun.  Another reason for using the infrared is that this planet is hot.  Not quite star-hot, but 1500ºC.  Its way far from its sun, so why so hot?

The astronomers have been very clever, looking at a cluster of young stars, where the planets also will be young.  A giant planet like Jupiter or this one, eight times larger, takes billions of years to fully contract and cool.  Young hot planets like this one put out most of their light in the infrared part of the spectrum, and much, much more light than they would if they had time to cool.

Using this sort of approach, the easiest planets to see will be large, young planets at large orbital distances, exactly what we have here.  The first detections of planets using spectroscopy and the Dopplershift wobbles of their suns was tailor-made to find large planets at small orbital distances, exactly what was first discovered.

Astronomers once thought that planets were very rare, the result of a chance close encounter between two stars.  That was wrong.  Then there was the notion that planets might be common, and that most star systems would resemble ours.  That was wrong.  Now we have the possibility of a giant planet forming at huge distances from its sun, and we have no idea theoretically how this happens, but it seems that it does.

This is cool for me as both an astronomer and science fiction writer.  Solar systems have all sorts of things going on we don’t understand, and this makes this great for research and speculation.  It makes me want to see a lot more stories set in systems that don’t resemble ours at all and possess a lot more strange possibilites.

Rather than shutting the door on speculation and creativity, it seems to me that astronomy is blowing open doors as fast as we can invent new technologies.  The next generation of writers like Hal Clement and Robert Forward have no excuses not to top their originality while maintaining scientific accuracy.

We’re still more than a decade away from imaging an Earth-like planet, or to see a planet outside our solar system as anything but a point of light, but it’s a cool time to be a fan of science or science fiction.

Anyone have recommendations about novels pushing the world-building since we’ve started to learn about real exoplanets?

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail
BOOKMARK
PRINT

tags: astronomy, science, planets, exoplanets

18 comments
David Levine
1.  davidlevine
VIEW ALL BY · Monday September 15, 2008 11:47pm EDT
Next year at Launch Pad you should explain that 1" in this context means one second of arc rather than one inch (I thought it had something to do with the size of the CCD).
Blue Tyson
2.  BlueTyson
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 08:14am EDT
Thanks. Saw this earlier today, so was wondering about some other opinions.
eric orchard
3.  orchard
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 09:31am EDT
Amazing. What are some other possible types of systems?how do they vary?Are there any books you can think of that show a believable, radically different system?
Mike Brotherton
4.  mikebrotherton
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 09:55am EDT
I thought I had, David, explained about the arcsecond, but perhaps not explicitly enough. It does look like the symbol for inch, doesn't it? The CCDs themselves are indeed on the size scales of inches now, but the typical pixel size is measured in tens of microns.

orchard, there are systems with planets much larger than Jupiter, in which the gas giants have orbits closer than that of Mercury in our own solar systems. Basically there can be gas giants of almost any size imaginable any distance from the star. Where does that leave the terrestrial planets? Somewhere else. It also makes it possible to have large moons of gas giants in the habitable zone. It makes it possible to have giant electrical discharges between close planets and their suns. We seem to have super Earths out there, too, with relatively large terrestrial-type worlds. No reasons not to have rings around an Earth-like planet either, although they wouldn't last forever.

The vast majority of stories in alien star systems seem to skip originality in world building and jump to an Earth-like planet around a sun-like star, with only minor variations in temperature, gravity, and atmosphere. That was safe, empirically verified from our own solar system and life on Earth. It doesn't seem the only option by a long shot.
- -
5.  heresiarch
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 10:53am EDT
How big is that star, compared with Sol? If that planet is 330 AUs out, the star must have a radius of a couple dozen AUs. Or does it appear bigger than it actually is?
Mike Brotherton
6.  mikebrotherton
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 11:48am EDT
heresiarch, yes, bigger than it actually is. That's misleading, too. At this distance, the star is an infinitesimally small point of light. The size of the star in the image just shows the limits of our telescope concerning how sharply we can resolve that point. The star is about the size of our own sun, much smaller than even one 1 AU (which is good for us or we'd be fried!).
Andrea Leistra
7.  aleistra
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 02:15pm EDT
Grr, I hate it when I preview my comment and then forget to post.

At any rate, I don't like to sound curmudgeonly, but this isn't the first time a claim like this has been made (though I don't remember offhand whether the others got press releases or were confined to the astronomical literature); all the others failed the followup test of common proper motion (i.e. the "planet" and the star move through space together), and the faint cool object was shown to be a background object, either a star or a brown dwarf. To their credit the astronomers are good about pointing this out in the paper, but the press release makes no mention of it.
Mike Brotherton
8.  mikebrotherton
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 02:45pm EDT
aleistra, at least one of the planets around the brown dwarfs has passed the proper motion test:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050430105256.htm

Also, given the brightness and the temperature of this object, it's almost certainly part of the young cluster, although you are quite correct: there is a chance it's not in orbit but rather a rogue body/brown dwarf on its own.
Andrea Leistra
9.  aleistra
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 03:48pm EDT
mikebrotherton, I know that there have been planets that have passed the proper motion test -- but this isn't one of them yet!

Ah, I see the "almost" I had in the post got lost in my repost. Sorry for the confusion.
Mike Brotherton
10.  mikebrotherton
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 03:57pm EDT
No problem! It happens!

And yes, there will be follow-up on this one to see. But the other one that passed muster, although it's around a brown dwarf itself, is another wide-separation pair. These exist, and probably around sun-like stars, which will be proven if/when the proper motion studies play out.

And for the uncertain lurkers, "proper motion" refers to the motions of objects in the sky due to their own motion, not the motion or spin of the Earth. We need to make sure these move together.
Allyn Edgar Hughes
11.  allynh
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 08:43pm EDT
Sorry, but this isn't a description of a planet found but a binary star system, one star in visible light, the other probably a brown dwarf in infrared. This is similar to how Sirius A and B appear differently based on how they are observed.

The planet found is probably a brown dwarf. Having two stars like this, one visible one not, is an example of how stars fission to balance the energy load on them.

If none of the above makes sense, then here is a basic description of how Plasma cosmology/Electric Universe views the Sun.


Important Consequences of the Electric Star Model for the Sun.

1. A star is formed electromagnetically, not gravitationally, and is powered thereafter electrically (by Eddington's "subtle radiation").

2. Near the Sun, galactic transmission lines are in the form of 0.3 parsecs wide rotating Birkeland filaments (based on those detected at the center of the Milky Way). Their motion relative to the Sun will produce a slowly varying magnetic field and current density –' in other words a solar activity cycle. To that extent, all stars are variable. And just like real estate, location is vital.

3. An electric star has an internal radial electric field. But because plasma is an outstanding conductor it cannot sustain a high electric field. So plasma self-organizes to form a protective sheath or 'double layer' across which most of the electric field is concentrated and in which most of the electrical energy is stored. It is the release of that internal stored energy that causes CME's, nova outbursts, polar jets, and the birth of stellar companions.

4. In a ball of plasma like the Sun the radial electric field will tend to be concentrated in shells or double layers above and beneath the photosphere. A double layer exists above the solar photosphere, in the chromosphere.

5. The photosphere and chromosphere together act like a pnp transistor, modulating the current flow in the solar wind.* It has an effective negative feedback influence to steady the energy radiated by the photosphere so that astrophysicists can talk of a 'solar constant,' while the Sun''s other external electrical activity (UV light and x-rays) is much more variable. Because the photosphere is an electrical plasma discharge phenomenon it also expands or contracts to adjust to its electrical environment. That explains why the Sun 'rings' like an electric bell.

6. Double layers may break down with an explosive release of electrical energy. A nova outburst is a result of the breakdown of an internal stellar DL. Hannes Alfvén suggested that billions of volts could exist across a typical solar flare double layer.

more....


As always, read the links and make up your own mind.

Have fun.

---------------------

Great sites explaining Plasma cosmology/Electric Universe and Growing Earth Theory are at:

The Electric Universe - website

Thunderbolts - website

Plasma Cosmology - Los Alamos National Laboratory

Growing Earth Theory - website
eric orchard
12.  orchard
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 09:43pm EDT
mikebrotherton-Thanks for the detailed, thoughtful answer. It's great to hear something that is so inspiring and full of of wonder. Very cool.
Nathaniel Smith
13.  njs
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 09:46pm EDT
Oh, awesome, plasma cosmology kookiness![1]

allynh - Not being a scientific community myself, I'm not qualified to judge the validity of the relevant theories. (Nor is their validity even necessarily relevant in the context of an SFF site...) But I would like to point out that contrary to your statement ("one star in visible light, the other probably a brown dwarf in infrared"), the caption clearly states that it is a single image taken entirely in the near-infrared.

[1] I mean this sincerely and in the nicest way.
Mike Brotherton
14.  mikebrotherton
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday September 16, 2008 11:27pm EDT
As a professional astronomer, I sincerely think the plasma cosmology/electric star stuff is "kooky," too. ;-)

The classification issue is worth a little more discussion. There's no perfect way of determining what's a planet and what's a brown dwarf. There's not really a magic mass, and some argue that it's the formation mechanism that's important (e.g., forming from its own collapse or in an accretion disk of a protostar). It's semantics and definitions. We've fiddled with the definition of a planet recently, demoting Pluto, and I doubt we're done yet. Eight times the mass of Jupiter if the analysis is correct -- call it what you will. It's likely young and will cool significantly in the coming megayears until it's not visible in the near-infrared, but only the far infrared.
Mike Brotherton
Allyn Edgar Hughes
16.  allynh
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 17, 2008 01:12am EDT
I won't argue with anybody about kookiness, after all, I'm just a retired Civil Engineer. But you can always try and argue with a few Nobel Prize winners, and major astronomers and see how far you get.

Then of course you can always contact your Congressman and have him defund Los Alamos National Laboratory since they are obviously wasting Federal dollars by researching Plasma cosmology. But then, what do I know about science, and why should I disrupt your religious beliefs.

But then again, maybe Plasma cosmology would make more sense if you actually read the links. Nahh, that would be too obvious.

Have fun.
Andrea Leistra
17.  aleistra
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday September 17, 2008 07:27pm EDT
Just for the other readers, there are plenty of professional astronomers out there who are absolutely nuts, and Halton Arp would have been first on my list. (I knew who that link would reference without following it, for one thing.)

He made some interesting discoveries, some decades ago; it's too bad he went off the deep end afterwards, and spent the rest of his career trying to prove his hypotheses rather than test them. However, it's not all bad -- a talk he gave is what led me to develop the Key Crackpot Question: What observation (or experiment, for sciences where that's relevant) could convince you that your conclusions are wrong? Crackpots will either say "nothing", or give an answer conveniently impossible with technologies likely to be developed in the next few centuries (or technobabble you with something that ends up being logically inconsistent).
Allyn Edgar Hughes
18.  allynh
VIEW ALL BY · Friday September 19, 2008 04:28pm EDT · amended on Friday September 19, 2008 04:39pm EDT
Sorry to take so long to get an answer back, I had to help out with family the past couple of days.

@17 I love your non-comment about Halton Arp.


(I knew who that link would reference without following it, for one thing.)


I look at discussions about Plasma cosmology/Electric Universe the same way as in the Matrix Trilogy; there is no easy way to describe this stuff, you have to actually experience it.

Most people are comfortable in their illusions. Only a few feel deep in their bones that there is something wrong with the Myths being spun by cosmologists today. It's dangerous to wake people up when they are so deeply trapped in that illusion.

You can choose to take the blue pill and believe whatever you want. Or you can take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

As always, read the links and make up your own mind.

Have fun.
POST A COMMENT Name: Email Address: Comment (bbCode allowed):