Four twins: Giants extrasolar planets in HR 8799 star system. Something is wrong in our theory!

How planets are born? Who knows! None. Astronomers who study how planets form are scratching their heads after this incredible discovery in HR 8799 Star System, some 39 parsecs (129 light years) away from Earth.
Four Giant "Twins" Planets throw into doubt all the theories about the formation of planets.

Four gas giants, each more massive than Jupiter, circle in the star system HR 8799, shown in this image from the Keck II telescope.

The system, with this additional planet, represents a challenge for current planet formation models as none of them can explain the in situ formation of all four planets. With its four young giant planets and known cold/warm debris belts4, the HR 8799 planetary system is a unique laboratory in which to study the formation and evolution of giant planets at wide (>10 au) separations

Comparison of HR 8799 and our Solar System


Research by Christian Marois, B. Zuckerman, Quinn M. Konopacky, Bruce Macintosh & Travis Barman.
Please read the article published on Nature.
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...
www.nature.com...

Interesting

Maybe someone could explain this a bit better for the less informed members

I love when we discover our current theories are wrong or filled with flaws

reply to post by Quasar_La-Zar


Yes.

In these days seems that many scientific theories commonly accepted are loosing their autenticity.

Day by day, we experiencing the real truth: We don't know nothing.... and everything is possible!

reply to post by Quasar_La-Zar


It deals with how planets are formed, which this discovery shot down one theory. From wikipedia:

In astrophysics, the term accretion is used for at least two distinct processes.

The first and most common is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter in an accretion disc. Accretion discs are common around smaller stars or stellar remnants in a close binary, or black holes in the centers of spiral galaxies. Some dynamics in the disc are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentum and fall onto the central massive object. Occasionally, this can result in stellar surface fusion.

The other theory

The second process is somewhat analogous to the one in atmospheric science. In the nebular theory, accretion refers to the collision and sticking of cooled microscopic dust and ice particles electrostatically, in protoplanetary discs and Gas giant protoplanet systems, eventually leading to planetesimals which gravitationally accrete more small particles and other planetesimals.

Use of the term accretion disc for the protoplanetary disc thus leads to confusion over the planetary accretion process, although in many cases it may well be that both accretion processes are happening simultaneously. T Tauri is an example of this phenomenon.

4 Gas giants formed, no known "solid" planets in system, and their orbit which is close to the star contradict established theories on planetary formation.

From the article:

The system, with this additional planet, represents a challenge for current planet formation models as none of them can explain the in situ formation of all four planets. With its four young giant planets and known cold/warm debris belts4, the HR 8799 planetary system is a unique laboratory in which to study the formation and evolution of giant planets at wide.....

From another article:

The system is currently the only known example of a wide (greater than 25 AU) system with multiple giant planets, but this presents a problem for theories of planet formation, which occurs by one of two processes

Scientists say you cant have planetary formation using both models at the same time, which this system apparently does. They go on to speculate that there is a possibility of the presence of smaller rocky planets that cannot be detected.

At least, I think thats what they are referring to. I could be wrong, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

reply to post by Arken


I think what you'll find, eventually, is this:

Theories of planetary formation, and star system evolution, could only be formulated in years past, from what we knew of OUR Solar System. A whole lot of assumptions ha to be made, many of them stabs in the dark. We just had so little comparative data to go on.

BUT, that is the beauty of science!! It is able to adapt to new discoveries, and continually refine theories to reflect new knowledge.

By examining other versions of star system development, there is a growing data set to draw from, and learn from.

Think of it as if....your entire life was on an isolated, very small island somewhere. And it had only a limited variety and type of plant life. You know (somehow) of the existence of other islands, of all different sizes, very far away, and inaccessible to you. You know only that they exist, but no details.

You would naturally form theories on what sorts of plant life those other islands might contain...but, you would only be doing so based on your personal knowledge, and limited experience.

Really, the variety in nature is nearly infinite...just look at how many forms it can take, just on this one planet.

With these macro-astronomical concepts, they of course aren't "life"...but they are governed by physics, and physical processes, all very complex. As is life. So, from that point of view, there isn't usually a "simple" or easy to define "law" to boil it all down into.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Agreed.

I wander: More we go outside our "garden" and more we learn how the garden is very very little.
There is a unknown and amazing "Forest" out there!

This happens because Science states certain things as thoeries and some accept them as facts, such as Einsteins Theory of Relativity.
Many assume he is correct, many have proven he potentially is not. As we find more and more data, potentially is fast become most likely.

Originally posted by CanuckCoder
This happens because Science states certain things as thoeries and some accept them as facts, such as Einsteins Theory of Relativity.
Many assume he is correct, many have proven he potentially is not. As we find more and more data, potentially is fast become most likely.

I agree. In some cases science is treated like a religion where theories are confused with fact. And of course science that does not fit with government agenda often does not get the funding it deserves.

I wonder, is hyper-dimensional physics taken seriously within the mainstream science community?

reply to post by Arken


S+F. Every day we find out something we don't know about space but it's a step forward. Read an article about dead stars(neutron stars actually) forming new planets a while ago. If we can prove that, imagine what we can't.
link

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Arken

 

I think what you'll find, eventually, is this:

Theories of planetary formation, and star system evolution, could only be formulated in years past, from what we knew of OUR Solar System. A whole lot of assumptions ha to be made, many of them stabs in the dark. We just had so little comparative data to go on.

BUT, that is the beauty of science!! It is able to adapt to new discoveries, and continually refine theories to reflect new knowledge.

By examining other versions of star system development, there is a growing data set to draw from, and learn from.

Think of it as if....your entire life was on an isolated, very small island somewhere. And it had only a limited variety and type of plant life. You know (somehow) of the existence of other islands, of all different sizes, very far away, and inaccessible to you. You know only that they exist, but no details.

You would naturally form theories on what sorts of plant life those other islands might contain...but, you would only be doing so based on your personal knowledge, and limited experience.

Really, the variety in nature is nearly infinite...just look at how many forms it can take, just on this one planet.

With these macro-astronomical concepts, they of course aren't "life"...but they are governed by physics, and physical processes, all very complex. As is life. So, from that point of view, there isn't usually a "simple" or easy to define "law" to boil it all down into.....

Very nice find OP. The image from the Keck II is simply amazing.

I'm saving that quote weedwhacker..................this coming from you?.....................damn

reply to post by Arken


S&F

But I'm just always amazed they know so much detail about what's going on 129 lightyears away!!!

Originally posted by Namaste1001

Originally posted by CanuckCoder
This happens because Science states certain things as thoeries and some accept them as facts, such as Einsteins Theory of Relativity.
Many assume he is correct, many have proven he potentially is not. As we find more and more data, potentially is fast become most likely.

I agree. In some cases science is treated like a religion where theories are confused with fact. And of course science that does not fit with government agenda often does not get the funding it deserves.

I wonder, is hyper-dimensional physics taken seriously within the mainstream science community?

Yes. You are right.
But what scare me are the numerous new "Inquisitors" that follow this new false religion blocked on old theories that we call commonly... Science!

If some independents scientists strikes the old theories they are called HERETICS! And banned.

Fleishman & Pons? Cold fusion?

We are still in the NEST but we must take the courage and FLY!

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Arken

 

S&F

But I'm just always amazed they know so much detail about what's going on 129 lightyears away!!!

I'm amazed too, in particular when I think that we only know really few and incoherent news about the Moon, Mars and its satellites, Venus, Jupiter and all its Moons, Saturn and all its Moons and Rings etc... etc...

What a strange kind of Science is this?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Arken

 

S&F

But I'm just always amazed they know so much detail about what's going on 129 lightyears away!!!

Completely agree.. In addition to the 129 light years, they were able to find a planet that origionated from another Galaxy (Article/thread is on this site somewhere).

Alpha / Proxima Centauri is our closest neighbor at around 4 light years, give or take. Sirius is about 8.6 light years away and no news from that direction either. Makes one wonder why they would look way out instead of close.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Completely agree.. In addition to the 129 light years, they were able to find a planet that origionated from another Galaxy (Article/thread is on this site somewhere).

Alpha / Proxima Centauri is our closest neighbor at around 4 light years, give or take. Sirius is about 8.6 light years away and no news from that direction either. Makes one wonder why they would look way out instead of close.

lol, It's not like we can argue the point..
You either believe them or you don't I guess..

Then I hear we have only seen 1/3 of species on earth and it makes me wonder how little they all really know..

reply to post by Arken


Like I've said before, the universe is going to be more stranger than what we thought. For instance single star systems aren't the rule they are the exception. In fact more systems are binary on up. Two, I believe that many habitable planets will be moons of large gas giants. Also we will see many planets being super earths (planets 6 to 10 times the size of earth).

Originally posted by CanuckCoder
This happens because Science states certain things as thoeries and some accept them as facts, such as Einsteins Theory of Relativity.
Many assume he is correct, many have proven he potentially is not. As we find more and more data, potentially is fast become most likely.

I am very glad you raised this - it is central, I believe to an understanding of how planets form. Due to the body of empirical evidence and work of Dayton Miller - I do not believe the basics of relativity at all.

A theory that I ascribe to is as follows;

Vacuum is a FLUID - and planetary bodies form on low pressure nodes which arise due to the characteristics of the solar mass, its angular moment, 'gravity' (effective diameter of singularity), and the drag and electric field effect on the vacuum.

A planet starts as a black hole - a mini star, it converts vacuum into matter - mainly light gas at first and charged particles - they become trapped in its magnetic field, and over time they condense and compact and may form a solid crust - as our own earth.

Inside the earth lies a void, inside that void lies the singularity that creates earths internal heat - it constantly creates matter of all kinds and a magnetic field.

reply to post by Amagnon


Very, very interesting theory! And plausible!
Star!