Slashdot Mirror


Possible First Photo Of Extra-Solar Planet

dtolman writes "Space.com is reporting that the first direct image of an extra-solar planet may have been made using a new technique with the Hubble telescope. Confirmation will be made in the next few months by reimaging the star, and seeing if the planet candidate has actually changed in its orbital position."

10 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. Not that interesting (?) by clausiam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article itself says that extra-solar planets have been detected for more than 10 years via gravitational observations. The fact that this one is photographed doesn't seem to add the much more interest to it since the "photograph" will probably be something only scientist working directly with this technique would recognize as anything but background noise.

    Claus

    1. Re:Not that interesting (?) by snake_dad · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Are you kidding? Until recently it was not even possible to resolve a star as a disc (with the exception of that yellow thing that's supposed to be in the sky during the day), and now, possibly, we see, not detect, a planet outside our own solar system for the first time! As the article says, this is at the limit of current technology, so no wonder it is hard to detect. What did you expect? Beautiful pictures of weather patterns? Volcanos?

      It is sad to see that even here, buried in the science section, people can be so casual and dismissive about what could become one of the biggest break-throughs in astronomy.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    2. Re:Not that interesting (?) by Satai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not true. I've seen Debes' photos, and I'm sure if you dig hard enough you can find them as well. What they look like is a central star that has been removed (some artifacts remain) with a spike in signal some distance away. The planet may not be resolved to any real detail, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it's a direct imaging.

  2. Re:Hubble! by captainktainer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they are suggesting decommisioning the Hubble for the same reason that schools often cut extracurricular sports first when budgets get tight

    Pardon me... but what schools are you speaking of? At least in Florida, the first things they cut are sciences and arts; extracurricular sports are the last to go. Even when they can't afford classrooms for all of the students, they still build new stadiums.

    Hubble is our most powerful telescope... and while telescopic observations aren't exactly going to bring about a revolution in telecommunications, if we're going to study the heavens, planet-watching strikes me as a damned good goal.

  3. Captions by Gleng · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    1. Re:Captions by nukey56 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or even more?

      This could get to be a mildly dangerous thread..

  4. Re:Naming conventions by shiwala · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the IAU website...

    "In response to frequent questions about plans to assign actual names to extra-solar planets, the IAU sees no need and has no plan to assign names to these objects at the present stage of our knowledge. Indeed, if planets are found to occur very frequently in the Universe, a system of individual names for planets might well rapidly be found equally impracticable as it is for stars, as planet discoveries progress."

    Of course, that page was modified back in '01. Maybe there's an actual system in place now?

    Russia. Planets. Name. You.

  5. Re:Naming conventions by astroboscope · · Score: 4, Informative

    It seems to be

    Star-name Letter

    where letter goes from A to Z with decreasing mass, i.e. Upsilon Andromeda A, Upsilon Andromeda B, ...

    --
    If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
  6. Common proper motion, not orbital change by TMB · · Score: 4, Informative

    The blurb is slightly inaccurate... the follow-up observations aren't going to see if the object has moved around in its orbit (the distance between the primary and companion is larger than the orbit of Neptune, and the primary is a white dwarf so probably about 0.6 times the mass of the sun... from Kepler's laws, that means the period is 67% longer than Neptune's period, or about 275 years... so in 6 months it won't go very far!).

    What they're going to look for is common proper motion... the white dwarf appears to move across the sky due to some combination of its motion in space and ours. If the candidate companion shows the same proper motion after 6 months, it is probably physically associated.

    [TMB]

  7. Re:I'll be impressed... by TMB · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, you're thinking about nulling interferometry, which is also very cool. :-)

    What they're doing is a bit more straightforward. When you observe a point source with HST, the diffraction of the light off the supports and mirror give you a somewhat complicated not-really-symmetric pattern called the Point Spread Function (PSF). To detect a faint source right near a bright source, you need to subtract off the bright star, which means you need to know the PSF really really well so that you don't mistake some leftover light that's really from the primary as a companion.

    What they're doing is observing the same field twice, once rotated slightly. The PSF doesn't depend on how the field is oriented, so faint spots that are rotated are real while ones that aren't rotated are due to instrumental effects. This means you can look at much fainter things and know if they're real or not.

    To answer the original question, it will be harder the brighter the primary is... I don't know exactly what they're limits are, but it may be possible to push it to brighter stars. Working in the near-infrared, which they're doing, will help. But white dwarfs are pretty faint, so I'm not sure how much brighter a star you could get away with.

    [TMB]