Slashdot Mirror
First Image Of Planet-Like Body Orbiting A Star
deglr6328 writes "The Gemini North Telescope has, for the first time, directly imaged a planet like body orbiting a star. The object is a brown dwarf, 55 to 78 times the mass of planet Jupiter and 14 AU distant from its parent star 15 Sge. It was imaged using adaptive optics(see also here) that correct for the blurring effect of the atmosphere using deformable mirrors. Cool!"
Even though the "photograph" is of just two fuzzy blobs it's cool nonetheless, especially that the first thing photographed should be celestial object that we don't have in our solar system that also happens to simultaneously prove that there have to be numerous ways that solar systems are "born" in the wake of a star's formation.
One wonders if the cosmic soup had simmered a little more or a little less if Jupiter wouldn't be a binary star. How would it affect sleep patterns? What the hell would our watches look like?
Who did what now?
a Brown Dwarf is said to be Classified Less massive than stars but more massive than planets,
brown dwarfs. so.. at 78 times the size of jupiter how massive is massive? and how massive is it not massive compared to a star?
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
If Jupiter had somehow been lit (by being hit by an object the size of uranus, say - I've been told that would have done it), it would have burned out in the deep, deep precambrian (billions of years ago). It doesn't have five billion years of fuel. While burning in the early stages of earthly development, it would have been about as bright as the moon (of course, the sun at that time was bluer and overall dimmer). Butterfly flaps it's wings in China, I know, but I don't think it would have been enough of a change in the overall radiation level on earth that whatever conditions allowed life to rise on earth wouldn't have been in effect. Given those conditions, you ask - is life likely to arise, or is it a rare event even in the conditions that favor it (over the course of billions of years,) such that a tiny change in conditions could have prevented that one spark of life from occuring? As a molecular biologist with interests in the field of molecular evolution and structural biology, I'm going to say - no, given that conditions that favor the appearance of life (as a chemical phenomenon) it's going to happen.
If Jupiter were more massive - simply igniting it without changing it's mass wouldn't cause it to exert more gravity - well, yeah, all bets are off, since that would imply very different things about the environment under which the entire solar system formed. Although, it just occured to me, Jupiter's core is still undergoing nuclear reactions (so is the earth's core) just not on a stellar scale. I don't see how we'd know if those reactions had been much faster/brighter three billion years ago. We'd have to guess from the amount of heavy hydrogen present in the Jovian atmosphere, and I don't think our measurements (radio spectroscopy? something about Jupiter's magnetic properties?)are precise enough to figure that out.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Perhaps instead of thumping his Bible, he should have tried reading it before expressing his opinion. The book is silent on other planets and of course life on other planets, much less intelligent life on other planets.
Perhaps once could infer that there is no intelligent life on other planets based on theological complications with Jesus having to die for their sins too, but even that is speculation beyond what the book says.
The Bible has very little to say about scientific matters, despite what many theologians and Bible thumpers have decided up over the years. You would think people would have learned that making up stuff, claiming it was based on the Bible, and then getting trashed by the facts would have become unpopular since Galileo. BTW, the theoligians that disagreed with Galileo were following Aristotlean arguments not the Bible. Once again, the bible never says the earth was the center of the universe, etc. The Bible mentions the sun rising, etc. and people have inferred that the earth is at the center becuase of such language -- however, this is merely descriptive of the apparent sunrise, I can even read the sunrise & sunset times in the morning paper, and I am pretty sure that publisher know that earth orbits the sun, and the sun-rise is simply appearance, not a literal sun-rise.
Back to topic
Let's face it, the ability to directly image anything outside the solar system is pretty amazing. It was not very long ago that Betelgeuse was imaged as the first star (as a disk, not a point source).
There are some very interesting large-baseline telescopes that have been proposed that would theoretically allow imaging details of planets in other solar systems, alas they budget for such projects may be some time in coming.
It's still a long way to the nearest star. With current tech, would be be very lucky to get a large ship moving at 1 percent light speed, so we will have to settle for pictures for some time to come. Where is Zephran Cochran when you need him?
adaptive optics have the ablity to create images at the same resolution of the Huble space telescope. I wonder what this means for it's future. Seems kinda pointless now.
( I submitted an artical about it to slashdot a month or so ago, but it was rejected..)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
. Now for Jupiter to become a star it would have to be around the order of 100 times more massive than it is now (though that's still much less massive than the sun).
Well, that may or may not be true. The question is - can you get Jupiter's core under enough pressure to undergo fusion? The fact that it is undergoing fission now is relevant because fission of the sort occuring in Jove's core also requires considerable (although lesser) density/pressure. The heavy elements may also provide a source of high energy alpha particles to help fusion get started (like in a modern H bomb which uses fissioning technitium as a trigger.)
So, PV = nRT, right? Well, if Jupiter were hit by a uranus-sized object moving perpendicular to the orbital plane -
1) It would put off huge amounts of heat (q = delta T / S) which might increase the pressure in Jupiter's core enough to ignite it.
2) The actual impact would involve a lot of force, as well - the whole planet would deform like a ball bouncing off the wall of a squash court. This would constrict the volume available to the core (lowering V, raising P) as well as causing huge differentials in density (raising n locally) as the planet bounced back into shape.
I'm not sure if that would be enough to do it, but once Jupiter is "lit", the fusion processes in it's core WOULD put off enough heat to be self-sustaining.
Also, the nuclear reactions going on inside the Earth and Jupiter's cores are fission based (decay of unstable elements). This is completely different from what's happening in the Sun so comparing this to what was happening in the early stages of the solar system is pointless.
Actually, fusion is decay of unstable elements as well - heavy hydrogen nuclei are hit by other heavy hydrogen nuclei and "decay" into helium nuclei. The fission at earth and jupiter's cores is NOT spontaneous decay like you see in a sample of carbon 14 that is left to sit (at least not mostly). It's collision-mediated decay, a slow form of chain reaction like you see in a detonating U235 bomb. That is to say, like nuclear fusion, the fission that occurs in the earth's core is collision mediated.
Thank you for pointing that out though, since I agree that my previous post certainly didn't draw a distinction between the two.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Well, an important thing to understand is that this discovery is not a "picture" of the planet or the star in the traditional sense, in that you cannot see details on the surface of either the planet or star. That possibility is simply way beyond any telescope technology we currently have, and will continue to be for quite some time.
If you take a look at the original image released (in the CNN story), the point is that the scientists were able to see the planet separately from the star, on its own, for the first time. Up until now, it has generally only been inferred that those planets exist, based on the wobble of the parent star, or appearance/disappearance of elements in the spectrum.
Both the star and the planet are point objects. There is no detail you can see on either, even though they seem to have "diameter". This is just diffraction at work.
the abstract for the technical article is already on the preprint servers. it's much better than the cnn article, for the technically trained. (the complete article was temporarily withdrawn, but they tell you how to get it.) see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0112407
Umm... an idea came to my mind to build an ao telescope and picture the Moon with it. Assuming we did this, what would be the resolution within reasonable bounds of investment to hardware. Would we be able to see the Apollo landing sites and the trails left by the Moon Buggy?
The Vatican recently admitted that it is possible for extraterrestrial life to exist in our universe. Father Coyne, director of the vatican's space observatory (yes, they've got one!) literally says it "would be crazy to think we're alone in the universe".1 010423859.html
Logically, they must therefore also believe in the existance of planets...
For more info (in Spanish): http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2002/01/07/ciencia/
Now I don't know if your Physics teacher was Catholic or not, but in any case...