Astronomers Discover Planet That Shouldn’t Be There

page: 1
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+31 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been posted, did a search but it came up blank.

Astronomers from the University of Arizona have discovered a distant exoplanet with a set of characteristics so bizarre that they say it should not even exist.


With a mass about 11 times that of Jupiter and an orbit about 650 times greater than the average Earth-Sun distance, newfound planet HD 106906 b, the UA astronomers say, is throwing a wrench into existing planet-formation theories.

"This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see," said research leader Vanessa Bailey, who is a fifth-year graduate student at UA's Department of Astronomy.

Bailey and her colleagues' research on planet HD 106906 b has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.


Massive Newfound Planet Defies Traditional Planetary Formation Theories

The existence of planet HD 106906 b does not coalesce with leading planet formation theories.
The planet is too far from its star to have formed from colliding asteroid bodies as the star was first coming to life, and the planet is too massive to have formed from gasses in the primordial disk of its forming star - typically the primordial disk, at such a distance from the star itself, does not have enough material to support the formation of such a large planet.

It is thought that planets close to their stars, like Earth, coalesce from small asteroid-like bodies born in the primordial disk of dust and gas that surrounds a forming star. However, this process acts too slowly to grow giant planets far from their star. Another proposed mechanism is that giant planets can form from a fast, direct collapse of disk material. However, primordial disks rarely contain enough mass in their outer reaches to allow a planet like HD 106906 b to form.

This new planet is estimated to be about 13 million years old and this young planet still glows from the residual heat of its formation.
Where Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago.



The team was able to confirm that the planet is moving together with its host star by examining Hubble Space Telescope data taken eight years prior for another research program. Using the FIRE spectrograph, also installed at the Magellan telescope, the team confirmed the planetary nature of the companion. "Images tell us an object is there and some information about its properties but only a spectrum gives us detailed information about its nature and composition," explained co-investigator Megan Reiter, a graduate student in the UA Department of Astronomy. "Such detailed information is rarely available for directly imaged exoplanets, making HD 106906 b a valuable target for future study."



Read more at: phys.org...




edit on 5-12-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



+16 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Just goes to show that the current paradigm in astronomy really doesn't explain everything. I have always had an inkling of a thought that a large portion of the currently accepted theories about space and the universe should be held in that regard... theories. until we can traverse the cosmos (farther than earth orbit) we will never really know if these theories are right.

There are alot of people (that i know, and on ATS) who take the current theories as 100 percent proof. I guess when people with Ph'D's and the like say something their word is law.

good post. S&F


+11 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
What we don't know is light-years away from what we do know, eh?

Scientific knowledge is cool...but its arms are too short. The vastness of the cosmos and the mystery of consciousness will always leave us floundering in a sense of wonder. And many steps behind seems to be the best guess.


edit on 5-12-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Exactly. By the way I loved your OP regarding weapons and UFO's. One of my favorites



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   

smithas05
Just goes to show that the current paradigm in astronomy really doesn't explain everything. I have always had an inkling of a thought that a large portion of the currently accepted theories about space and the universe should be held in that regard... theories. until we can traverse the cosmos (farther than earth orbit) we will never really know if these theories are right.

There are alot of people (that i know, and on ATS) who take the current theories as 100 percent proof. I guess when people with Ph'D's and the like say something their word is law.

good post. S&F


There is no way that we as humans can know with 100% certainty the life and creation of our Universe when it's billions of years old and Man has only been here on the planet for a fraction of the lifetime of the Earth.
What, roughly 200,000 years, give or take??

What an arrogant species Man has become.

Mother Nature will shake us off like fleas when she gets ready. No way we will ever know all there is about this Universe or beyond

edit on 5-12-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

snarky412
Not sure if this has been posted, did a search but it came up blank.

Astronomers from the University of Arizona have discovered a distant exoplanet with a set of characteristics so bizarre that they say it should not even exist.


With a mass about 11 times that of Jupiter and an orbit about 650 times greater than the average Earth-Sun distance, newfound planet HD 106906 b, the UA astronomers say, is throwing a wrench into existing planet-formation theories.

"This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see," said research leader Vanessa Bailey, who is a fifth-year graduate student at UA's Department of Astronomy.

Bailey and her colleagues' research on planet HD 106906 b has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.


Massive Newfound Planet Defies Traditional Planetary Formation Theories

The existence of planet HD 106906 b does not coalesce with leading planet formation theories.
The planet is too far from its star to have formed from colliding asteroid bodies as the star was first coming to life, and the planet is too massive to have formed from gasses in the primordial disk of its forming star - typically the primordial disk, at such a distance from the star itself, does not have enough material to support the formation of such a large planet.

It is thought that planets close to their stars, like Earth, coalesce from small asteroid-like bodies born in the primordial disk of dust and gas that surrounds a forming star. However, this process acts too slowly to grow giant planets far from their star. Another proposed mechanism is that giant planets can form from a fast, direct collapse of disk material. However, primordial disks rarely contain enough mass in their outer reaches to allow a planet like HD 106906 b to form.

This new planet is estimated to be about 13 million years old and this young planet still glows from the residual heat of its formation.
Where Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago.



The team was able to confirm that the planet is moving together with its host star by examining Hubble Space Telescope data taken eight years prior for another research program. Using the FIRE spectrograph, also installed at the Magellan telescope, the team confirmed the planetary nature of the companion. "Images tell us an object is there and some information about its properties but only a spectrum gives us detailed information about its nature and composition," explained co-investigator Megan Reiter, a graduate student in the UA Department of Astronomy. "Such detailed information is rarely available for directly imaged exoplanets, making HD 106906 b a valuable target for future study."



Read more at: phys.org...




edit on 5-12-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)
just shows once again that just cause some suppose scientist says something we can,t take it as fact.we have to accept what we think we know is just going on guess work.they base everything on what they know about this planet,not actually what could be possible elsewhere.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Too often science is certain they have the answers only to have to rewrite history. Every once in a while evidence smashes the accepted theory. We needed this.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
My 2 cents;

What we think we know and throw out as fact concerning our Universe is so far removed from the truth that if we all actually agreed and understood these facts, our astronomers would bow their heads in shame.

I'm not saying that ALL astronomers are in the same boat but I am 100 percent sure that what we are exposed to as far as information (this included) is not even close to the truth.

Why?

You know the answer...

Peace



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   

snarky412

smithas05

Mother Nature will shake us off like fleas when she gets ready. No way we will ever know all there is about this Universe or beyond

edit on 5-12-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)


My best guess is that mother nature knows better than ignorance. If it was to be a being, a living person, what do you think she could tells us about what happened on this planet for the last 200,000 years ???

She could demystify every lies and truth being spread in the world !



Thruthseek3r



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
edit on 5-12-2013 by thruthseek3r because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


" We know exactly one billionth, of one percent, of absolutly nothing "

Thomas Edison

In my view this is a grossly over optomistic exaggeration.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


With a mass 11 times that of saturn it may actually be a failed brown dwarf and the distance from its parent star may actually mean that it was formed in the same stella nursery or is a passing capture, The real mystery is why it is not as far as they can tell undergoing fusion as at that mass it should be able to sustain it unless it is a heavy element body.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Would it be too obvious to suggest that resistance to planetary formation "rules" as we know them could be a potential hint that it's not a natural formation?

Just spitballin', but it seems at least an idea that requires inclusion.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
So it is acting like a puppy chasing it's tail. I guess the people studying this will be scratching their heads for a while. I wonder if it is orbiting a small super dense tiny moon size object with gravity that we cannot see? I'll let them come up with a speculation on this. It could just be off balance too and be spinning through space with a wobble like the sun does.
edit on 5-12-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LABTECH767
 


I was thinking the same thing since (Jupiter) is thought to be a failed star, so that would mean something with 11x it's mass would also be a failed star. I guess it just couldn't create fusion and was doomed to float around in the dark.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   

WonOunce
I was thinking the same thing since (Jupiter) is thought to be a failed star, so that would mean something with 11x it's mass would also be a failed star. I guess it just couldn't create fusion and was doomed to float around in the dark.

Exactly what I was getting ready to post before I read your comment.
This sounds a lot like a failed binary star. Most of the stars in our galaxy are binaries, then its size and distance, so it certainly seems to fit.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


Maybe it's Gallifrey and The Doctor will find it now.



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   
My question would be how have they ruled out that this was a planet that formed around the star and not a captured wandering or orphaned planet?

I guess I'll have to go check out their paper on arxiv for specifics not in the layperson article.

arxiv.org...

In case you don't know, most planet formation models have planets which get ejected from the star system. Our own solar system likely ejected planets when it was forming. We've even detected and imaged some of these wandering planets in the cold depths of interstellar space.

So.... if this planet is 650 AU out, my first question is, have the run time backwards to see what possible interactions that star system might have had with perhaps another?

It may be that they found an exceedingly rare object: A captured orphan.

Another idea is that this is some kind of failed brown dwarf.... We know of brown dwarfs that have wide orbits like that.


EDIT: And that would seem to be what the researchers suspect too, having just read the abstract of the paper, look at this bit at the bottom:

"Furthermore, we find no additional companions, though we could detect similar-mass objects at projected separations >35 AU. In situ formation in a binary-star-like process is more probable, although the companion-to-primary mass ratio, at



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I truly admire those who gaze up at the heavens and wonder. I respect the ones who are honest enough to admit they don't have all that many definitive answers. I love it when the movie industry amplifies what we don't know ... and what might just be.
If you never saw the deleted scenes, you missed out. LOL



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Maybe this is a star-planet thing !?


Great find





new topics
top topics
 
53
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join