Slashdot Mirror


Star Smaller Than Some Planets Found

Abhishek writes "Astronomers have found the tiniest full-fledged star known, an object just 16 percent bigger than Jupiter. It is smaller than some known planets that orbit other stars. The star is a companion to a Sun-like star toward the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. It was found and measured by observing changes in the light output of the system when the smaller star passes in front of the larger star from our vantagepoint. This would give a better idea of brown dwarfs or failed stars. The star has been named OGLE-TR-122b. This discovery also marks the possibility of stars that look strikingly like planets."

138 comments

  1. Interesting... by Ianoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've read in other places that there needs to be a critical mass for a big cloud of hydrogen to begin fusion, otherwise it ends up as something like Jupiter. What might be the reason for this star burning when other similarly sized objects do not? Gravitational effects from the companion star imparting extra energy? Any physicists care to speculate?

    1. Re:Interesting... by philkerr · · Score: 0

      Chandrasekhar limit. The mass limit at which the force of gravity overcomes the pressure produced by electron degenerate matter. At this mass limit, which corresponds to 1.4 times the mass of the Sun, the electrons are forced inside the atomic nucleus, where they combine with the protons to form neutrons.

      The gravitational collapse is then halted by the pressure exerted by the neutrons, since they are in a state of matter known as baryon degenerate matter. This pressure is then sufficient to halt further collapse unless the body contains more than three times the mass of the Sun.

      Not my explanation above, but this discovery does bring the limt down quite a bit.

    2. Re:Interesting... by selectspec · · Score: 5, Informative

      The article is misleading confusing "size" with "mass". This new star has 95 times the mass of Jupiter. However, it's density is so great that its physical size is only slightly larger. Density is the trigger key for fusion.

      --

      Someone you trust is one of us.

    3. Re:Interesting... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      What might be the reason for this star burning when other similarly sized objects do not?

      Once a gaseous object gets to be the size of Jupiter, adding more material to it causes its diameter to shrink because of the increasing mutual gravitation. As even more matter is added, the shrinking effect is eventually counteracted by thermal expansion caused by fusion once it ignites into a star. After that point, the diameter grows again as the fusion rate increases with more mass.

      Apparently, this object has many times the mass of Jupiter, but not so much that that its diameter has rebounded past that of Jupiter.

    4. Re:Interesting... by DoubleEdd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Chandrasekhar limit is 1.4 solar masses, and is quite irrelevant to the lower limit on the mass of hydrogen which will form a star.

      This star has no bearing on the Chandrasekhar limit.

    5. Re:Interesting... by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      It's 16% *bigger* than Jupiter, so its diameter must have rebounded past that of Jupiter by about 16%.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    6. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Chandrasekhar limit decides whether a dead star (one that has burned all it's fuel) collapses into a neutron star. Nothing to do with star *formation*.

    7. Re:Interesting... by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The parent post is full of jargon buzzwords, but is totally wrong and nonsensical. Brown dwarfs are not electron degenerate, and they certainly aren't freaking neutron stars!

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    8. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chandrasekar limit is the threshold mass required to collapse into a neutron star, quark star, or black hole. Below the Chandrasekar limit, stars collapse into white dwarfs. In Main Sequence (normal) stars, the difference in pressure of the more dense gas at the center and the less dense gas towards the outside results in a pressure differential outwards that exactly balances the inward force of gravity. Your explanation is correct (more or less) for white dwarfs, but not Main Sequence stars.

    9. Re:Interesting... by Minwee · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think you are confused. The Chandrasekhar limit is the upper mass limit for a stable white dwarf star -- A star whose core exceeds that mass will become degenerate and collapse into a neutron star or "black hole" while one below the limit will be able to support itself and remain a white dwarf until it burns out and dies.

      The Chandrasekhar has to do with the _death_ of stars, not their birth. To be considered a star all you need is sustained hydrogen fusion at the core, not electron degeneracy. While it's interesting that we are seeing a dense low mass star the value of L C is in no danger of being rewritten.

      To learn more, why not search the Internet?

    10. Re:Interesting... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 4, Funny
      Likely it was rebels fleeing from an Alliance Heavy Cruiser. As they were slingshoting around the larger star, they decided to launch one of their thermonuclear torpeados into the gas giant orbiting it, triggering the thermonuclear reaction that the proto-star was incapable of initiating on it's own. Luckily for the rebels the unexpected flood of radition from the new star was enough to temporarily blind the sensors of the Alliance Cruiser, allowing them to escape.

      But that's just my hunch.

    11. Re:Interesting... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      This makes me wonder, because of it's density, whether or not it has a fission component. Almost like a big hydrogen bomb, a fission triggered, fusion reaction. Is so massive because the hydrogen somehow got so dence? Or is the core composed of heavy elements? Can core composition be determined from spectral lines?

      Could it be a star that was stripped of most of it's mass?

      Could it be a white dwarf that accumulated more hydrogen? If I remember correctly, dwarfs and neutron stars that accumulate mass tend to errupt in a nova.

      I don't see any attempts to hint at what caused this in the article...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    12. Re:Interesting... by Surazal · · Score: 1

      This makes me wonder, because of it's density, whether or not it has a fission component. Almost like a big hydrogen bomb, a fission triggered, fusion reaction. Is so massive because the hydrogen somehow got so dence? Or is the core composed of heavy elements? Can core composition be determined from spectral lines?

      I doubt fission plays any role here... just plain old fusion. It's just not a very large amount of fusion. Spectral analysis can't peer into the core (you can't see it, silly ;). It must be inferred by other means, like taking its density into account.

      Could it be a star that was stripped of most of it's mass?

      Maybe, but I think this body formed as-is. That's my hunch

      Could it be a white dwarf that accumulated more hydrogen? If I remember correctly, dwarfs and neutron stars that accumulate mass tend to errupt in a nova

      More like a supernova. ;) No, it's not a white dwarf or a neutron star.

      I don't see any attempts to hint at what caused this in the article...

      Scientists, as a rule, try not to make stuff up off the top of their heads. It just means that they don't know either and are probably working on obtaining more funding to look at this thing again in the future. Of course, there are going to be the inevitable computer models, and so on. :P

      --
      --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
    13. Re:Interesting... by RobertFisher · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can show from basic stellar structure theory that you need a minimum mass of .08 solar masses or so to ignite hydrogen on the p-p cycle. (You can burn heavier isotopes like lithium and deterium at lower masses, but these contribute negligibly to the energy budget of the star because of their low abundances.) .08 solar masses is about 80 Jupiter masses, so this star is over the p-p burning limit. As another author pointed out, the star has a radius comparable to Jupiter. It turns out that due to the physics of degeneracy pressure. Jupiter is about at a maximum in radius for substellar objects.

      --
      Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
    14. Re:Interesting... by lgw · · Score: 1

      So how does this explain the discovered planets much "larger" than Jupiter? It the article confusing size and mass? Are the "large" extra-solar planets actually smaller than Jupiter, despite being more massive?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Interesting... by Razor+Sex · · Score: 2, Informative

      I happen to be taking an Astronomy class right now, and it takes something on the order of eighty times the mass of Jupiter to achieve the critical density for fusion. A brown dwarf is something with greater than thirteen times the mass of Jupiter, though this number is pretty arbitrary. The stellar mass minimum is less so, because gravity has to be able to overcome the outward pressure generated by the heat of the collapsing cloud.

    16. Re:Interesting... by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 3, Funny

      > What might be the reason for this star burning when other similarly sized objects do not?

      Sheer impotent RAGE.

    17. Re:Interesting... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Brown dwarfs are not electron degenerate

      In fact, they are; at the high densities found in brown dwarf cores, the electrons are partially degenerate. Same for low-mass stars, IIRC.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    18. Re:Interesting... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      A nova is a result of a surface fusion detonation of accumulated material. A star fuses hydrogen inside it's core.

      The reason a nova fuses hydrogen on its surface is that a white dwarf is the heavy remains of a burned out star. Hydrogen is very light, so it remains on the surface of the white dwarf.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  2. Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aren't neutron stars "stars"? And aren't they smaller than planets?

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by nefele · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neutron stars were stars at one point, but they're not stars in the same sense that the Sun is. When a Sun-like star ends its lifecycle with a (super)nova burst, it gets rid of most of its mass, and the rest collapses into a small neutron 'star', or a black hole if the mass was sufficiently large.

      IANAP, but I think no thermonuclear reactions take place in neutron 'stars' (or maybe just not enough to sustain the emission of light, so they're not easily visible). So basically neutron stars are just dead stars.

    2. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by City+Jim+3000 · · Score: 1

      A neutron star is related to a star in the same sense as a black hole is, i.e. at one point it _was_ a star.

      Real life doesnt do
      SELECT * FROM definitions WHERE phrase LIKE '%star%'

    3. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      IANAP, but I think no thermonuclear reactions take place in neutron 'stars'

      Correct. It's not possible to fuse atomic nuclei when the object is itself, one large nucleus.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    4. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 0

      Well, since neutron stars are not one big nucleus that really doesn't matter. Neutron stars appear to be bright little white stars. This gives them the name of white dwarves. They're pretty much little cores of carbon that can't fuse because of the lack of mass (this is where the 1.4 solar mass number comes in). If the star is >1.4 solar masses then if forms a black hole. If it is 1.4 solar masses then it forms a neutron star which appears white. This white colour is only there because of energy left from when it was a star. It eventually cools off and becomes a black dwarf floating around space.

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    5. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not true.

      White dwarves are indeed chunks of the leftovers of fusion, but neutron stars are an entirely different phenomena. They're conglomerations of neutrons.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    6. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by LokieLizzy · · Score: 5, Informative
      Not quite. Actually, not at all. A sun-like star doesn't end its life cycle with a nova burst, or anything like that. Rather, it swells into a red giant, and eventually *slowly* puffs out its outer layers and forms a planetary nebula, with a white dwarf at its center. Stars that (go) Nova are typically several times larger than our sun, and stars that go supernova can be hundreds of times larger than our Sun (hence their names: red or blue supergiants). Sirius (brightest star in the night sky) is an example of a blue supergiant, while Antares (the heart of the Scorpion) is a red supergiant. After supernovaing, it's *these* stars that can form neutron stars or black holes. But not our sun, or stars in close mass to our sun -- those form planetary nebulae, and white dwarves.

      Furthermore, neutron stars aren't dead -- they often radiate a hell of a lot of energy. Those that do are called *Pulsars* -- that's where all those directional radio/x-ray waves come from in deep space -- they spin like lighthouses, you see.

      --
      My digital rights don't need management.
    7. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are a lucky man, Lord Pillage; you now have a golden opportunity to expand your horizons by learning all about white dwarfs and neutron stars, and about the stark and dramatic physical differences between them.

      Enjoy!

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    8. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "supernovaing"?

      The star lost all its torrents to a lawsuit?

    9. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real life doesnt do
      SELECT * FROM definitions WHERE phrase LIKE '%star%'

      SELECT * FROM definitions WHERE LOWER(phrase) LIKE '%star%'

    10. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by mustermark · · Score: 1

      Correct. It's not possible to fuse atomic nuclei when the object is itself, one large nucleus.

      *sigh* So many people on slashdot who think they know everything. Many neutron stars with massive companions have regular thermonuclear flashes of hydrogen on their surface that they accrete from the companion and then heat up. The intensive pressure at the surface plus the heat makes the H fuse.

    11. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      The intensive pressure at the surface plus the heat makes the H fuse.

      Well, that would be fusion *on* a neutron star, not *in* it. It's not just semantics; the process you are talking about does nothing to support the NS against gravity, since it's at the surface. The point is, a neutron star, by itself doesn't have any fusion.

      *sigh* So many people on slashdot who think they know everything.

      LOL, take it easy, man. I have a PhD in astrophysics, how about you? ;)

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    12. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      IANAP

      I Am Not A Planetarium?

      --
      What?
    13. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by mustermark · · Score: 1

      Well, that would be fusion *on* a neutron star, not *in* it. It's not just semantics; the process you are talking about does nothing to support the NS against gravity, since it's at the surface. The point is, a neutron star, by itself doesn't have any fusion.

      OK, you saved your face with semantics, but what you said was very misleading.

      I'm about to get my PhD in astrophysics, so hmmmmph. ;-)

    14. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, you saved your face with semantics, but what you said was very misleading.

      What?! No it wasn't misleading. Neutron stars cannot have nuclear reactions. Period. If one happens to be in a mass-transfer binary, the infalling material will obviously burn, but that's *not* the NS, it's the infalling material!

      Misleading? Sure, the same way saying "Dogs can't fly" is misleading, because you saw one on an airplane once. Sheesh.

      Out of curiosity, what would you say if someone asks you whether nuclear fusion takes place in a neutron star? Would you really say "yes it does"? Now *that's* misleading...

      I'm about to get my PhD in astrophysics, so hmmmmph. ;-)

      Congratulations! See you at the AAS sometime...

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    15. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by njh · · Score: 1

      What I've never grokked is: where does the beam come from? My basic physics suggests that it comes from the poles, but why would the poles sweep like lighthouses?

    16. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

      They come from the magnetic poles, which are not the same as the spin axis -- rather like earth's magnetic poles on a combo of crack and pcp.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    17. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • Furthermore, neutron stars aren't dead -- they often radiate a hell of a lot of energy.

      Yes they are. Compare to a dead human body, it too radiates heat until it's at the ambient temperature. That's exactly what's going on with neutron stars, too, a dead body radiating left-over energy (both heat and rotational energy, radiated in different ways).
    18. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by njh · · Score: 1

      Of course, thanks. Silly Earthling prejudices :)

    19. Re:Aren't neutron stars "stars"? by mustermark · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what would you say if someone asks you whether nuclear fusion takes place in a neutron star?

      I'd probably take the weasel answer and say, "Well it depends ..." lol.

      Whether material accreted onto the surface is part of The Neutron Star officially or not is debatable, but I think most people would agree that anything gravitationally bound is part of it. Would you say that the Earth's atmosphere isn't part of the Earth? Because the atmosphere is completely different from the surface, so ... ?!?!

      Also, when that accreted matter flashes, what do you think becomes of it? The neutrons and such are incorporated into the degenerate matter (IIRC). In which case, you have fusion going on.

      I guess that's why we have PhDs, huh? Funny how education makes you see things as more complex, rather than simpler.

  3. that's no star... by HawkinsD · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's no star... That's a space station!

    --
    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
    1. Re:that's no star... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Bah. The actual appropriate quote, regarding small stars...

      "Make him a star? What'd he want a star for?"
      "I didn't know you could make stars... I thought they were like, you know, stuck to the sky..."
      "I think he meant to make him a star. You know, him himself. Turn him into a star."
      "How can you make anyone into a star?"
      "I dunno. I suppose you compress them right up small and they burst into this mass of flaming hydrogen?"
      "Good grief!"
      "Yeah! Is that troll mean, or what?"

      - Terry Pratchett: Moving Pictures

    2. Re:that's no star... by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      "I think you're right. Chewy lock in the auxilary controls!"

  4. They're only small stars by eclectro · · Score: 3, Funny

    until the Oscar awards.

    Thank you, I'm here all week.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:They're only small stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, I'm here all week.

      Thank god it's Sunday already...

    2. Re:They're only small stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There's a bus leaving in 30 minutes; you'd better be under it.

    3. Re:They're only small stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an example of a small star that is smaller than a planet. Any astronomer knows that...

  5. Constellation by Chemisor · · Score: 2

    Was it found in the underdog constellation? Now, what is the latin name for that?...

    1. Re:Constellation by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 2, Funny

      Canis minor ;)

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
  6. Very cold water vapor must surround the star... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and some shrinkage is going on. Do the galaxies know about shrinkage? Those stars sure hope so.

  7. Quadrupole-induced polarization? by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Funny
    There is a possibility, albeit a small one, that an overload of the phase coupling relay reaction in a solar furnace (star) could trigger a non-catastrophic split.

    If a star is smaller than the conditions necessary for supernovae, and is struck with a star of the same size, you will end up with quadrupoles flying off in different directions. Needless to say this is rare, which makes this quite an exciting find!

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    1. Re:Quadrupole-induced polarization? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wha? Sound like something LaForge would come up with to detect a cloaked romulan warbird.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Quadrupole-induced polarization? by clarkcox3 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think that was the intention.

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
  8. This is rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's probably just in the final phases of extinction

  9. That's so cool by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow! Go, OGLE!

    I'm gonna register a website for that...

    No, wait... :-/

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  10. Stars "looking" like planets ? by Dozix007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it should be noted that the way we look at stars and planets could never really lead to that mistake. Radiation emitted by a stellar body is analyzed and it is then determined "what" the stellar body is. It is impossible to misinterpret an extremely hot stellar body with a relatively cool planet.

    1. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      It is impossible to misinterpret an extremely hot stellar body with a relatively cool planet.

      I wouldn't say that. Extremely low-mass stars are very faint and not much hotter than the most massive planets (especially when the body in question receives heat from a much hotter companion star, as is the case with this object).

      There is no sharp distinction, empirically speaking, between a very low-mass star and a very high-mass planet (i.e., a brown dwarf).

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    2. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by Dozix007 · · Score: 1

      You also have to consider that Stars are made up of common materials that planets are not composed of. This results in the emission of something that looks like a Perfect Black-Body curve with certain amounts of energy emitted at different wavelengths that are not seen among planets. (And if the planet were hot enough, with those common materials, it would become a star.)

    3. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by Fex303 · · Score: 3, Funny
      It is impossible to misinterpret an extremely hot stellar body with a relatively cool planet.

      I dunno... After a few drinks I've been known to think all kinds of things have hot bodies.

    4. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      That should make defending cool planets in court a lot easier. "Beings of the court, my client is a peaceful cool planet, not a violent hot stellar body. If the spectra doesn't fit, you must acquit."

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      What materials are you thinking of? Low-mass stars and high-mass planets should have very similar composition. The only distinction I can think of is that true stars will not have lithium in their atmospheres, because it gets consumed when you have thermonuclear reactions (low mass stars are fully convective, so the surface stuff gets churned down to the center where the burning takes place).

      Anyway, that's something that planets have but stars don't have, the other way around from what you said.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    6. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by Dozix007 · · Score: 1

      The materials vary but it goes down the logical line of fusion. Planets don't have near the mass of stars (not even close). The difference is going to be that a star has the thermonuclear reaction which is going to cause intense radiation to be emmited. This won't happen in nearly the same way on a planet because the thermonuclear reaction isn't there. Remember that with a small increase in energy there is a drastic change all across the frequency spectrum.

    7. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by gerardrj · · Score: 1

      Actually it could. They are searching for planets by searching for their effect on the local star. The wobble they detect in the host star can now not be assumed to be a planet without futher investigation.

      The only planets we observe via reflected light are those within our own system. To my knowledge no-one has imaged a remote system's plantary bodies yet..

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    8. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. You were talking about differences in the compositions (the "materials" present in the spectrum); now you're talking about thermal blackbody radiation.

      Planets don't have near the mass of stars (not even close).

      Huh? I guess it depends on whether you consider brown dwarfs to be "planets" for the purposes of this discussion, but by definition, anything that is not massive enough to fuse Hydrogen is not a star, even if that object is just slightly lower than the threshhold mass. There's no great quantum leap in mass between those things that burn, and those that do not. The distribution of masses is smooth.

      The difference is going to be that a star has the thermonuclear reaction which is going to cause intense radiation to be emmited.

      Again, the very lowest-mass stars have pretty feeble luminosities, so your statements that there is a "drastic" difference due to "intense" radiation from stars is pretty misleading...

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    9. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by metlin · · Score: 1

      I know!

      That's why they call them heavenly bodies! :-p

    10. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by Dozix007 · · Score: 1

      I was refering to materials present in stars. Stars are highly dense and large, as the one in this article is. And in reguards to the intense change in Luminosity with even a slight temprature difference, that is true. If the temp. of a star is increased by even a few Kelvin the total luminosity will change across the spectrum. Remember, for even a small temprature change the energy output change is very significant.

    11. Re:Stars "looking" like planets ? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • I wouldn't say that. Extremely low-mass stars are very faint and not much hotter than the most massive planets (especially when the body in question receives heat from a much hotter companion star, as is the case with this object).

      Still, there should be a clear difference in the radiation dependeing on if the energy comes from inside, or only from outside.

      If it comes only from the outside, then the "night side" should much cooler than the "day side", which should be visible in the temperature range of the radiation.

      Also, if there's *any* fusion in the star, there must be quite a lot of it, enough to stop the collapse of the entire, enormous mass of the mini-star (since the core of a star necessarily has lower density because of the fusion energy, than if it were just a brown dwarf with equal mass. So if there is fusion, it should increase the energy output a lot, making the surface much hotter than a cooling brown dwarf can ever be.
  11. Don't panic... by hanssprudel · · Score: 3, Informative


    Before anyone starts panicing about Juptier collapsing into a companion star to the sun, and screwing over our whole solar system pretty royally - please note that while this star is only 16% larger than Jupiter in volume, it contains 95 times as much mass.

    1. Re:Don't panic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What!?! Jupiter's going to collapse into a companion star to the sun, and screw over our whole solar system pretty royally?!? Why don't people TELL ME these things? Why does only /. have this kind of information? Don't you think this is going to affect how much money I sock away in my IRA? Is this going to happen in the next 5 years or what? If so, let's make a movie about it.

      - TheDS (too lazy to register)

    2. Re:Don't panic... by Evan+Meakyl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is this going to happen in the next 5 years or what?
      Keep cool!

      Scientists predict that this will happen in 2010, because of a mysterious black monolith.

    3. Re:Don't panic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Scientists predict that this will happen in 2010, because of a mysterious black monolith."

      Now if only governments could work together and end this cold war.

    4. Re:Don't panic... by novalogic · · Score: 1

      Damnit! 2010 won't come true then!

      HAL, OH HAL WHERE ARE YOU?!

      --
      --
  12. So again, why? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The article is misleading confusing "size" with "mass". This new star has 95 times the mass of Jupiter. However, it's density is so great that its physical size is only slightly larger. Density is the trigger key for fusion.

    Been a long time since I was I was into nuclear phys, but how can it maintain that density with such (relatively) small mass? The process of fusion, which tends to expand a star, equally balances gravity which tends to contract a star. Seems to me a normal star would expand due to fusion.

    Basically, it doesn't make sense that it can maintain being 1/10 the mass of the sun and 50x as dense. This means its fusion output must be tiny (little to balance gravity), but why? Is it mainly made of non-hydrogen mass? They should be able to tell the elemental composition from the spectrum. And how could it have such little fusion and not be a brown dwarf?

    Wish this press release had some science in it.

    1. Re:So again, why? by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Any fusion and it stops being a brown dwarf, by definition.

    2. Re:So again, why? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      Any fusion and it stops being a brown dwarf, by definition.

      Which still doesn't answer the question of why normal stellar fusion doesn't expand this thing pretty substantially.

    3. Re:So again, why? by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. I avoided replying to that point because it baffles me too... I guess that's just the way the numbers work... odd.

    4. Re:So again, why? by qeveren · · Score: 1

      It's mass is so low that the pressure and temperature at the core can only support a very low rate of fusion. It's radiation pressure from fusion that counterbalances the self-gravity that tries to make stars collapse, so it's no surprise to me that it's pretty tiny. :)

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    5. Re:So again, why? by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Been a long time since I was I was into nuclear phys, but how can it maintain that density with such (relatively) small mass? The process of fusion, which tends to expand a star, equally balances gravity which tends to contract a star. Seems to me a normal star would expand due to fusion.

      Basically, it doesn't make sense that it can maintain being 1/10 the mass of the sun and 50x as dense. This means its fusion output must be tiny (little to balance gravity), but why? Is it mainly made of non-hydrogen mass? They should be able to tell the elemental composition from the spectrum. And how could it have such little fusion and not be a brown dwarf?

      Wish this press release had some science in it.

      Actually, you got the right answer! The star has expanded due to nuclear fusion taking place it just hasn't expanded dramatically because it doesn't take a dramatic amount of fusion to support a star with so little mass.

      The reason fusion is needed to support a star is because the heat generated through contraction is radiated in to space. The energy lost through this process needs to be replaced to keep the volume of the star constant - and fusion provides this energy.

      There are two reasons why a star this small can exist. The first is the low mass of the star. The smaller the mass of the star the less heat it takes less energy to raise the tempreture of the entire star. This means it takes less energy to maintain the tempreture of the star and this means less fusion.

      The second reason is surface area. The Sun has a surface area of approximately 6 x 10^20 meters compared with Jupiter's 6.4 x 10^18 meters. This star is only slightly larger than Jupiter in terms of volume and so will have a comparable surface area. This means that the radiation of heat in the star will not be as efficient as in the sun and that means less fusion is required to keep the tempreture of the star constant.

      Since the tempreture, among other things, determines the size of a star both of these factors allow the star to remain balanced and still stay fairly compact. So while it suprising that stars this small exist it is not inconsistent with theory.

      Simon.

    6. Re:So again, why? by mustermark · · Score: 1

      The second reason is surface area. The Sun has a surface area of approximately 6 x 10^20 meters compared with Jupiter's 6.4 x 10^18 meters. This star is only slightly larger than Jupiter in terms of volume and so will have a comparable surface area. This means that the radiation of heat in the star will not be as efficient as in the sun and that means less fusion is required to keep the tempreture of the star constant.

      No, sorry. The ratio of surface area to heat-generating volume is what you mean. This quantity goes like 1/r, so larger stars have less efficient cooling, neglecting radiative transfer effects. Sure the star has less surface area than the Sun, but it has an even smaller relative volume.

      So basically you should say that the star is only generating a minute amount of fusion, *and* it is a more efficient radiator.

    7. Re:So again, why? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1
      It's mass is so low that the pressure and temperature at the core can only support a very low rate of fusion. It's radiation pressure from fusion that counterbalances the self-gravity that tries to make stars collapse, so it's no surprise to me that it's pretty tiny. :)

      I may be off here, but its density seems insanely high though.

    8. Re:So again, why? by AdrianG · · Score: 2

      Close. Brown dwarfs can be hot enough to fuse deuterium, but not normal hydrogen. Any fusion of normal hydrogen and its not a brown dwarf.

      Adrian

    9. Re:So again, why? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Maybe the heat from the gravitational collapse is enough, when added to the gravitational collapse itself, to push a "near star" mass over the edge into fusion for a few million years or more.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:So again, why? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • I may be off here, but its density seems insanely high though.

      Well, I suppose it would have enough mass to collapse into a white dwarf, which would be much denser and smaller still. So it being that big is no great mystery when you think of it that way.

      It's just that the pesky H starts fusing at some point before getting to the white dwarf density, stopping the collapse, for now anyway. Even at that slow rate of fusion I don't think the star will last more than a few hundred times longer than our Sun.
    11. Re:So again, why? by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      A white dwarf isn't a collapsed star - well, yes it is, but not in the sense that it's too small to have enough fusion to keep it's size. It's a star that no longer has enough fusion because it's all been turned into carbon. A white dwarf is pretty much solid carbon - there's no way a young star can turn into a white dwarf by gravitational collapse.

    12. Re:So again, why? by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's not hydrogen fusion occurring. Red dwarfs are fusing carbon. 95x jupieter's mass in 1.15x the volume would give it a density in the range of liquids, so maybe it's fusing (something) into Sodium, or something else that emits yellow-white light.

      I personally think that the degree of uncertainty in our measurements of distant masses are so high that many of the conclusions we draw about distant planets and planet-like stars are similar to early observations of Venus and Mars, where we thought Venus was earthlike and Mars "canals" could come from plant life. How good are the statistical models used to process the data from these stars at filtering out gravitational effects from our local planets, comets and any dark matter that might lie between us and the star system being observed?

      --
      We are the 198 proof..
    13. Re:So again, why? by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • A white dwarf is pretty much solid carbon - there's no way a young star can turn into a white dwarf by gravitational collapse. ...
        there's no way a young star can turn into a white dwarf by gravitational collapse.

      That's exactly what I mean. A difference between a brown dwarf and a (future) white dwarf is just that. Brown dwarf wasn't dense enough to collapse into a density comparable to a white dwarf, because if it had enough mass, it would have first started to fuse Hydrogen and lived a life as a regular star, it would not be a brown dwarf at all.

      Talking about that tiny star in the article, I wouldn't be so sure it'll end up being solid carbon at the core, it's fusion might stop at Helium already. But it'd still be a white dwarf, wouldn't it, just a bit eccentric one. Or could it be that it would never become a true white dwarf, just a... "brownish dwarf" that consists of increasing amount of Helium that is slowly fused from original Hydrogen?

      As far as I understand, the core of a white dwarf is degenerate matter, a stable soup of atomic nuclei and electrons, while the core of a gas giant or a brown dwarf is still atoms. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here...
  13. Mickey Rooney by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    Mickey Rooney appeared slightly irritated at a press conference held in his Beverly Hills Mansion earlier today. "I was discovered over 70 years ago, and these astronomers claim they've got a smaller full-fledged star? Well I've got news for 'em."

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  14. Naming the star by karvind · · Score: 1

    Are we out of names now. They names this little baby : OGLE-TR-122b. May be I should change my address to 127.0.0.1 too. -a

    1. Re:Naming the star by mustermark · · Score: 1

      Are we out of names now. They names this little baby : OGLE-TR-122b.

      What is the point of naming thousands of stars that you survey at the time of the survey? This is just a code that tells them which in a catalogue it is. Now if it becomes famous, they can give it a stupid name, like karvind. Will that make you happy?

    2. Re:Naming the star by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 1

      Here's a name for the new star: Echidna. I don't know why.

      --

      *****
      Dear Mary,
      I yearn for you tragically,
      A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

  15. When a star dies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does it produce a brown dwarf? That stinks!

  16. Small enough to be portable... by drfishy · · Score: 2, Funny

    We should go get it. It's always good to have a backup...

  17. LOL WHAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wong with www.go-ogle.com?

  18. more fuel to the fire of planet X by master_p · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Planet X is also said to be a small non-ignited brown dwarf circling our sun every 3600 years. What the article describes is quite similar to that. Let the speculation begin! prepare your tinfoil hats!

    1. Re:more fuel to the fire of planet X by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 1

      Oh great, not more Nibiru crap. There's only so much Nibiru I can handle before I feel the need to request antipsychotics.

      --

      *****
      Dear Mary,
      I yearn for you tragically,
      A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

    2. Re:more fuel to the fire of planet X by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Planet X? Duck Dogers and Porky accidentally destroyed that one.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  19. size of star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    C'mon now, you can't tell me the star was actually smaller than Uranus?

  20. Stars, brown dwarfs, and planets by RobertFisher · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is an important point to clarify here regarding nomenclature.

    Stars shine by nuclear fusion of hydrogen. That can only be sustained in stars of about .08 solar masses or greater.

    However, smaller mass objects are formed alongside stars with lower mass still. Astronomers call objects with insufficient mass to burn lithium (but enough to burn deuterium) "brown dwarfs".

    At still lower masses, objects which cannot even burn deuterium are labelled (somewhat arbitrarily) according to their environment. If they are orbiting around another star, they are called planets. If they are free-floating, they are given another name -- free-floating objects or planets, depending on the author.

    In the end, this is all a rather arbitrary scheme imposed by humans. For instance, if an object not burning deuturium is ejected from a protostellar disk, it gets changed from a planet to a free-floater in the process!

    This article deals not with mass but with radius. There are in fact many objects which are known to exist with far less mass than the star reported here. They are not called "stars," but in fact the distinction is just one of nomenclature.

    --
    Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
  21. Dyson sphere! by eingram · · Score: 1

    This should make building a Dyson sphere really, really easy! Right? No?

  22. Dyson by Digital_Quartz · · Score: 1

    All you need is the ability to trap all the energy from both stars. Some kind of container whose inside is it's outside. I predict this will give rise to a whole new industry in Dyson-Klein Bottles.

  23. Could it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this "star" be an iron core the size of Jupiter? Maybe an iron core with enough fissile matter to trigger fusion in an outer layer of hydrogen. I thought that Jupiter's core was about as dense as Earth's. Are there more active regions of the Milky Way that should be rich in metals, where large iron rich objects are relatively more common?

  24. other possibilities by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    This discovery also marks the possibility of stars that look strikingly like planets.

    Not only that, but it also suggests the possibilities of miniturizing these amazing power sources to such a size as to be portable. Perhaps someday we'll each have our own pocket-sun that we can use to supply juice to our laptop computers. Think it's unlikely? These are the same computers that exponentially out-perform computers that took up an entire room some thirty years ago.

    1. Re:other possibilities by Meumeu · · Score: 1

      That's easy, you just have to use a naquadah generator or a ZPM, it can power a laptop for years...

  25. Re:Bucket required? by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

    are you suggesting she's a ipod?

  26. Re:Blackhole by Uber+Banker · · Score: 1

    "Sure all life would die off and everything would freeze."

    Not if you live in France or Japan, two countries with reasonable nuclear energy production. Plants could still be grown, lights would still work and it'd be like a really long night time.

  27. Tiny aliens... by HermanAB · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    well, now we know where these tiny grey alians come from - a tiny star with tiny planets...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
    1. Re:Tiny aliens... by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      Made from tiny atoms? Man, that must have been expensive to build...

  28. Re:Blackhole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you'd have to do is figure out how to breath liquid oxygen and you'd be fine!

  29. Re:Blackhole by cdcarter · · Score: 1

    Technically, we would fall in, but because of the such increased gravitational force, relavitivity would pop in and we wouldn't see us falling in.

    --
    "Love is like a trampoline, first it's like "SWEET!!" then it's like *BLAMM!*"
  30. you've got it all wrong by Fry-kun · · Score: 1

    that solar system is actually the home system of the Aschen (ref: Stargate) - they have converted one of their gas giants into a second sun so that their crops would have higher yield

    XD

    --
    Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
  31. Pesky monoliths at work again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clear it's evidence of those pesky monoliths at work again.

    1. Re:Pesky monoliths at work again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying the star is powered by Intel processors?

  32. Nice, but... by itedo · · Score: 1

    ...98% of the Universe isn't explored yet. I guess, we'll have to "look" for answers for a long while.

    At least, 600 years ago people believed the World is a Disc.. 100 years ago, people believed that atoms can't be splitted and 10 minutes ago, I didn't know that there is a "star" of almost Jupiter's size... how fascinating! ;)

    1. Re:Nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...98% of the Universe isn't explored yet.

      Huh? That means you Martians have already explored 2% of the Universe?

    2. Re:Nice, but... by barnzi · · Score: 1

      Imagine what you will know tomorrow...

      -K, Men in Black.

      Nothing escapes my quote radar. ^_^

      Rob.

      --

      Official threat to Homeland Security
      University of Surrey - http://www.surrey.ac.uk

    3. Re:Nice, but... by Patersmith · · Score: 1

      The ancient greeks knew the earth was spherical. It's first suggested by the likes of Aristotle and Pythagoras around 600 BC. Eratosthenes, around 300 BC, went so far as to measure the circumference of the earth to a fairly good degree of accuracy by observing the difference in the length of shadows cast at different points on the earth at the same time of day. There's a good summary of who figured out what here.

      Ptolemy (2nd century AD) was the church's calendar guy and had the spherical orbital model of the solar system figured out, except he had the earth at the middle of it. It wasn't until Copernicus (16th C. AD) and Galileo (late 16th and early 17th C. AD) that it was corrected to put the sun at the middle but we all know what happened next.

  33. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor Roseann Barr. Will people never stop teasing her?

  34. What I want to know by haaz · · Score: 1

    ...is, how hot does it burn? If it is indeed a star, how hot are its surface and its core?

    --
    -- haaz.
  35. Planet-sized stars - a *new* discovery? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1, Funny

    > This discovery also marks the possibility of
    > stars that look strikingly like planets.

    We already have those.. examples include John Goodman and Roseanne Barr.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  36. Love by Adam.Steinbaugh · · Score: 1

    I'm going to love it, hug it, and call it OGLE-TR-122b!

    --
    "Mother, should I run for President? Mother, should I trust the government?"
  37. "I have summoned you here for a purpose..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "stars that look strikingly like planets."

    Launching Orson Welles jokes in five, four, three...

  38. question about jupiter by digitalsushi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    if jupiter had ignited into a star, what would it look like from earth? would it be brighter than the light that bounces off the moon?

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
  39. Sedna flashback by Zareste · · Score: 1

    Now for a long and pointless debate over whether it should be called a star or a moon.

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  40. You failed it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    16% of Jupiter isn't bigger, it's smaller.

  41. It's a red dwarf? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    I'm thinking (and IANAP) that this may be something like a white dwarf's configuration where you have a core of denser material with the actual fusion going on on the outside. The heavy central core may or may not contribute to further fusion (perhaps this is where the heavier atoms come from), but it provides the gravity needed to compress the hydrogen to a fusion stage.

    Among other things, I just can't see an object made of mostly hydrogen and helium being almost 100 times the density of Jupiter.

    In any case, getting on to the name: It's tiny like a dwarf should be; It's probably got a configuration vaguely reminiscent of a white dwarf (heavy central core with non-core fusion); and I'm guessing that it's radiating mostly in the red spectrum (because it's generating so little heat).

    Voila! A bonafide Red Dwarf star (and it's not (just) a cheap pun).

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  42. does it have to be hydrogen? by child_of_mercy · · Score: 1

    OK can a real physicist shoot me down?

    This thing is near the galactic core where things are older and funkier. Does this it have to be necessarily fusing hydrogen in there?

    Could the parent star be buggering up any spectrum analysis?

    --
    'There is a Light that never goes out.'
  43. Jupiter, our second star? by AvatarofVirgo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This post goes to all you scientist out there. First question, what's to keep Jupiter from being a star it self?

    And second, (this is a serious question so please don't mod me) but what would happen if some one blew up a nuclear bomb in Jupiter's atmosphere? Would it turn into a star or would it just burn out? And how would doing so affect Earth?

    I would think if Jupiter where to turn into a star that it's gravity would increase and effect the entire solar system on a gravitational level.

    What would happen to it's moons? Would the increase gravity suck the moons into the planet or would they stay in there old orbit? And what about Titan, the extra heat from the new lit star would heat up the moon and turn all those liquids into gases.

    This would be an interesting scientific experiment to try. I just want to know what would be the potential risk for us.

    1. Re:Jupiter, our second star? by Michaluk · · Score: 2, Informative

      No dude. Gravitational force is just a function of mass, so it would stay the same. Jupiter would keep orbiting (probably, you never really know with anything bigger than a 2 body system) but we'd have another source of light.