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!"

27 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm.... by cporter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is that a Starbuck's I can see on the high-res JPEG?

  2. Nice link to images, too by Tri0de · · Score: 4, Informative

    while you're there

    http://astra.hi.gemini.edu/gallery/science/

    --
    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
  3. Planet-like bodies by 6EQUJ5 · · Score: 4, Funny


    I say we name it "Rosie" or "Oprah"....

    --

    1. Re:Planet-like bodies by halo8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      well it is a brown dwarf.. wouldnt "Gary Coleman" be more apropriate?

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  4. Fuzzy little 'planet' by Nick+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are they absolutely sure someone didn't sneeze on the lens?

    Nick

    1. Re:Fuzzy little 'planet' by AnimeFreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh no... that is just the chocolate pudding. I think that dot is a earing or something, possibly a sprinkle from Bob's donut.

  5. Whats a Brown Dwarf... by halo8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Whats a Brown Dwarf... by PhuCknuT · · Score: 4, Informative

      A brown dwarf is a star massive enough for deuterium fusion, but not massive enough for normal hydrogen to fuse.

    2. Re:Whats a Brown Dwarf... by Random+Walk · · Score: 3, Informative
      Stars form from collapsing gas clouds. During the collapse, the core will get very dense and hot. However, if the mass is too low, the temperature and density will never reach the point where stable hydrogen fusion will ignite. The critical mass is about 8 per cent of the Sun's mass, corresponding to some 84 Jupiter masses.

      An object below this limit is substellar, and may be either a Brown Dwarf or a planet. The distinction between both is somewhat fuzzy, and certainly to some degree arbitrary. One could argue that Brown Dwarfs and planets differ by their mode of formation - Brown Dwarfs form from collapsing gas clouds, like normal stars, while planets form from accretion of material in a circumstellar disk. However, establishing how a particular object has formed is not an easy task, so this is not a very practical definition.

      Because Brown Dwarfs cool down over time, they eventually become cool enough for dust forming in their atmospheres, and they may show atmospheric phenomena (e.g. dust clouds) similar to those we know from planets. This is one of the reasons why surface imaging, either by direct imaging or with Doppler imaging, would be very interesting.

  6. Now here's what's funny ... by dmarcov · · Score: 3, Funny

    I had a high school physics teacher that was a bit of a bible thumper (no offense to any thumpers out there) who insisted that we would /never/ find planets (or planet like objects)in other solar systems. It was impossible, because . Something about proof denying faith, and without faith God being nothing ... oh wait -- that was someone else.

    I'd love to talk with him now ...

    1. Re:Now here's what's funny ... by statusbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now that god has apparently failed him he is probably off learning how to be a satanist. (typical extremist behaviour)

      --jeff

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    2. Re:Now here's what's funny ... by gewalker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?

  7. Re:Saw this earlier today by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    Would we even be here?

    Considering the climactic history of Earth, it's clear that even small perturbations in its orbit and small changes in the brightness of the Sun have large effects on the climate. In a binary star system, its not at all clear that any planetary climates would ever be steady enough to allow higher life forms to develop. Neither the orbit nor the energy received from the suns would likely be stable enough.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  8. Well...neither really by xX_sticky_Xx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Like the article says, brown dwarves cannot be considered stars since they do not generate energy from a thermonuclear reaction. Having said that though, they DO give off more energy than they receive from outside sources, much like Jupiter does but on a far larger scale. A good primer site for brown dwarves can be found here .

    Lastly, it is important to not confuse brown dwarves (almost stars) with white dwarves (dying stars).

    --

    ---

    I didn't want to leave this space blank.
  9. ummm, excuse me... by anzha · · Score: 5, Informative

    What ever happene dto Gliese 229?

    That was imaged back quite a while ago by a caltech team.

    I found papers about it at Jean Schnieder's webpage, but not a listing...

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  10. Telescopes have improved by oni · · Score: 4, Informative

    I still have a high-school science book that states "a star will appear as a single point of light even in the largest telescopes"
    Now we can see surface features on stars and even objects orbiting them. Pretty cool. Imagine what an orbiting interferometer will do!

    1. Re:Telescopes have improved by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  11. Re:'corrected,' eh? by sam_handelman · · Score: 3

    so they drew it in, right? i can do that too! look, planets!

    It is not quite that bad. This link here is really nice. I'm putting in a plug for my old alma-mater (go slugs.)

    Yeah, the pictures are pretty (awesome, if real) but I'm going to wait for pictures from the Hubble (which had better be forthcoming!) before I'm totally persuaded.

    That said - 58 light years? That's a long trip, but totally possible.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  12. Re: Mod up. by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Someone needs to mod the above up; it's important. I would have rephrased the post to reflect that this was NOT the first image of a brown dwarf orbiting a star if I knew about it before I submitted the comment.

    On closer examination, the Gemini North press release does not claim to be the first to image a brown dwarf; from the site:"The faint companion is separated from its parent star by less than the distance between the Sun and the planet Uranus and is the smallest separation brown dwarf companion seen with direct imaging". It is only the CNN story that incorrectly claims this.....Hmmmm perhaps a notification is in order.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  13. Re:Time-lapse pictures by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It orbits 14 AU away from it's star, it's orbital period is at least decades long.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  14. huble space telescope obsolite? by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:huble space telescope obsolite? by TMB · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are a few advantages that HST still has...

      - AO works by measuring the distortions in the atmosphere and then compensating for them. But light from different parts of your field take slightly different paths through the atmosphere, and so are not perfectly corrected. As you get farther and farther away from the point where you measured the distortion, your corrections get worse and worse. The amount of sky that you can correct at once is quite small.

      - In order to measure the distortions, you need a bright star that you can take as a point source. So bright that only about 1% of the sky is accessible. Artificial stars are still unreliable (but getting better).

      - AO-corrected images have a really weird point spread function (PSF)... you have a fairly large halo of light around a sharp peak in the centre. Great for finding points, but hard for measuring how bright the entire thing is.

      - The atmosphere blocks out a hell of a lot of the UV and IR light. No way of getting that back without going above the atmosphere.

      So HST still has very unique capabilities. And just wait until we start seeing science out of the ACIS instrument!

      [TMB]

  15. So... by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're admitting that it's all done with mirrors?

  16. Re: Hubble Space Telescope obsolete? by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 4, Informative
    The HST was built in the late 70's/early 80's. When did adaptive optics start up? I imagine that at the time, the HST was cutting edge for non-military space telescopes.

    As for the HST's future, it's scheduled for EOL at the end of the decade. Check out NASA's Next Generation Space Telescope page for its successor.

  17. Wrong about stellar lifespans by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

    If Jupiter had somehow been lit ... it would have burned out in the deep, deep precambrian (billions of years ago). It doesn't have five billion years of fuel.

    No. It would outlive the Sun. The larger a star is the greater the internal pressure, and the faster it burns fuel.

    Small stars are long lived, large stars burn out fast.

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  18. Be polite - be politically correct! by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 4, Funny

    African Extraterrestrial Vertically Challanged Star

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  19. Re:blowing itself apart? by BadDoggie · · Score: 5, Informative
    Let me help with your understanding.

    ...the reason that the sun doesn't blow apart is the extreme gravity holds it together.

    The Law of Hydrostatic Equilibrium: Within every layer [of a star], the outward force of pressure equals the inward force of gravity.

    Stars must have M 0.08 Msun to fuse hydrogen.
    There exists a high-mass cutoff because very high mass stars cannot attain hydrostatic equilibrium. Very high mass stars produce enormous numbers of high-energy photons (L and T are both large). Photons exert pressure on gas (an effect called radiation pressure.) Ordinarily, the effects of radiation pressure are small, but for stars with M > 60 Msun, models indicate the radiation pressure is large enough to blow the star apart.

    ...when [stars] run out of fuel, that outward pressure dissapears rather suddenly and everything falls back in.

    When a star exhausts the supply of H (hydrogen) in its core, it becomes a giant or supergiant, depending on its mass.

    Once a star has used up all the H in its core, fusion of H into He (helium) stops. The core starts to contract just as it contracted as a protostar before H fusion began. As the core contracts, it releases energy. This energy heats up the layer immediately above the contracting He core. The layer immediately above the core becomes hot enough to initiate the fusion of hydrogen into helium.

    The star now has three main layers:
    (1) Helium core (inner layer): Releases energy as it shrinks in radius.
    (2) Fusion shell: Releases energy as it fuses hydrogen into helium.
    (3) Hydrogen envelope (outer layer): Absorbs energy, and swells greatly in size.

    These swollen stars are now giants (if M 8 Msun).

    Supergiants and giants with M > 0.4 Msun become hot enough to fuse He into C by the "triple alpha process", making primarily C (carbon), sometimes overshooting and making O (oxygen), and making Be (beryllium) as an intermediary product (and lots of gamma rays, too).

    Once a giant or supergiant begins to fuse He in its core, it has four main layers.

    Supergiants and giants with M > 3 Msun become hot enough to fuse C into heavier elements.

    There is a limit to fusion: Iron (Fe).

    The stages in the life of a 25 Msun star:

    Hydrogen fusion lasts 7 million years
    Helium fusion lasts 500,000 years
    Carbon fusion lasts 600 years
    Oxygen fusion lasts 6 months
    Silicon fusion lasts 1 day
    The star's core is now solid iron: end of the line as far as fusion is concerned.

    Two choices:
    (1) The star finds an alternative pressure source to maintain hydrostatic equilibrium which doesn't rely on the random thermal motions of atoms and ions; or
    (2) The star collapses giving you:
    a) black hole
    or
    b) nova/supernova

    All clear now?

    woof.

    citations/references:
    http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398 starrfield.html
    www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_4 /n otes16.html
    cse.psc.sc.edu/hses/StarEvol/pages/reds.htm
    blueox.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/astr122/Notes/Chapte r2 1.html
    www.imsa.edu/edu/astrophys/studentwork/inquiry/ (not as good)