Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Strange New 'Twin' Worlds Found

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the galactic-misfits dept.

toomanyairmiles writes "The BBC reports on the the discovery of 'twin worlds' which orbit each other, successfully blurring the line between planets and stars. 'Their existence challenges current theories about the formation of planets and stars.' according to the Journal of Science article which reports their existence. 'The pair belongs to what some astronomers believe is a new class of planet-like objects floating through space; so-called planetary mass objects, or "planemos", which are not bound to stars.'"

13 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Just goes to show... by nebaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However insular we want to be, the universe has all sorts of stuff in it that we would never expect. Sure with CGI, we can 'visit' anything we can imagine.
    It's just great that there is more than that out there. Gives me hope for the future.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Just goes to show... by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you may not start a debate. The fact is that science is supposed to change with observation and understanding. Religious belief is usually "concrete" and a matter of faith. Sure, you can mix the two, but be aware of the conflicts that arise.

      Should religion be taught in schools? I don't mind. Just don't teach it in a science class. It's bad enough that science is treated like religion in most US classrooms.

      I personally would have enjoyed a philosophy class in high school, btw.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    2. Re:Just goes to show... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea of planets orbiting each other doesn't seem so surprising. Even to say that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice-versa, is slightly ill-defined. The earth and sun exert equal but opposite forces on each other, so they both accelerate, but the sun is much heavier so it accelerates the earth much more. The sun's orbit of the earth is so small, it's just a wobble. But what is the precise ratio of mass where we say one body "orbits" the other?

    3. Re:Just goes to show... by renoX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Should religion be taught in schools? I don't mind.

      I don't mind either if religionS are taught in school, explained, compared (especially if the atheism, agnoticism are also explained) , I do mind quite a lot when a specific religion is taught in school as if it was *the truth*, talk about brainwashing.

    4. Re:Just goes to show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How does this blow the standing knowledge out of the water? Modern planetary formation theories all focussed on our own little corner of the universe. Since about the last 13 years all these extrasolar objects are being detected, which means there is now new observational data from which theories regarding these objects can now be derieved. These objects may form via some other method, or they might form in a conventional method and are flung out of their parent systems at some point. I fail to see how the detection of these objects in any way affects the theories or concepts of planet formation around stars via accretion disks.

      I find your first sentence incredibly obtuse or ignorant, given the track record and history of science over the last 500 years or so. Unless the "lunch time" is in a biblical figurative sense inspired by 2 Peter 3:8, as some would interpret it.

    5. Re:Just goes to show... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Should religion be taught in schools?

      Religious-based schools, yes. Public schools funded by taxpayers and frequented by people of all faiths (and non-faiths)? Never. Well, maybe a comparative religions class where the fundamental beliefs of each are discussed. Like it or not, religion and other superstitions rule our world still, and it's good to know who you're dealing with. This comparative religions class should be OPTIONAL, though, not mandatory.

      I think this is what pisses me off most about the whole "intelligent" design idea. You want your kids to learn that as hard, scientific fact? Send them to your church's school. That's what they're for! You want them to learn secular sciences, send them to public school, but understand they'll get NO religious stuff at all. Freedom OF religion implies freedom FROM religion. And, no matter what way you slice it, "intelligent" design is religion pure and simple. You want to send your kids to school on the tax payers dime (I don't care if you're also a tax payer, that doesn't entitle you to change the fundamentals of the Constitution), then teach them your voodoo at home where it belongs.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    6. Re:Just goes to show... by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It also shows that no scientific theory can be trusted to be valid past lunch, we just never know when we'll find something new that blows the standing knowledge out of the water.

      Hurm... well, yes and no. Theory gives us an excellent start in almost all areas, but theory is only (as a maximum) as valuable as the data on which it is based. We have very little data about the composition of our galaxy (less, even, than we do about the earth, millions of years ago), so it is not shocking that we would find major gaps in our understanding (we only just recently discovered the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy (and most or all others).

      Can it all really be random?

      First off, that's a non-sequitor. Second, "random" isn't the word you want there. When you are talking about large-scale processes, you can use ranomness as a tool to understand, but as we probe the nature of the universe we have consistently found that things that appear to have no order, are in fact very ordered. When you see two planetary objects orbiting one another, that's not random, it's the result of the gravitational forces exerted by those two bodies and, to increasingly lesser degrees, everything else in the universe. If it appears random, that's just becuase you had too little information about the forces involved.
    7. Re:Just goes to show... by Lijemo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that scientific theories will change when new evidence is presented is a STRENGTH, not a weakness. It's evidence of the system WORKING. A philosophy based on empirical knowlege THRIVES on revision just as much as a philosophy based on divinely revealed knowlege resists revision. Scientists LOVE it when there is a credible challenge to existing theories, because it means there is an oppertunity to learn a lot more. This doesn't "blow what we knew out of the water." Yes, our idea of what exists in the universw has been revised, thus our theories of how it all formed need to be revised as well. However, it doesn't change our ideas about how gravity functions, or how electro-magintism works, or what the speed of light is, or what causes rain to fall. Our theories of "how things work" are robust enough that one part can take some serious shaking without disturbing the rest. Science is not threatened by taking a good hard look at what it assumed to be true and re-evaluating it. I don't understand when people try to teach religion as science, because the debate isn't about what is scientifically true. The debate is "when strong empirical evidence conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible, which should be given more wieght?". Science (and the vast majority of religious people, who are non-literalists) say the empirical evidence, Bible-literalists say the Bible. It doesn't make sense for Bible-literalists to argue that empirical evidence supports their case, because they are ideologically bound to reject all empirical evidence EXCEPT when it agrees with the literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, they are not able (and have no desire ) to look at empirical evidence empirically. Which means what they are doing is NOT science. They are not making a scientific argument, they are making an episthemological one. Scientific and empirical evidence supports the scientific and empirical point of view. A literal interpretation of the Bible supports a Bible iteralist view. Thus, when literalists try to support a "revealed knowlege" episthemological world-view using the language and evidence of an empirical/scientific episthemological world-view, they only reveal their ignorance of the latter. The debate is an episthemological one. Empirical evidence clearly supports the scientits' view. The debate is as to whether empirical evidence is a valid way of determining what is true.

  2. Challenging views? by SheeEttin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but what exactly does this challenge? A planet doesn't need a star to form.

    If a nebula is the right size, it may form a planet--and it doesn't care if there's any stars nearby. It is then affected by something's gravity, and goes careening off into space.

    Additionally, to make twin planets, you'd need only a nebula that's peanut-shaped, so it collapses into two bodies.

    1. Re:Challenging views? by Roody+Blashes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't really challenge anything meaningful, the popularized stance in the article just makes it seem that way. There's always been a simmering debate over what, exactly, a "planet" is. Other than contributing to that relatively innocuous argument over terminology, there's nothing here that was previously thought to be impossible. There's absolutely no reason a stellar object MUST form in the area of a star, nor is there any reason it can't form in the area of a star and then be ejected by some stellar event.

      This is a farely rare phenomena, but not new, nor does it challenge any fundamental understanding of how objects form in space. It's just fuel for the "what is a planet" bickering that is constantly going on.

      --
      If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
  3. Pic by JesseL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't it amazing how well the artist's impression clearly and realisticly show that the these objects are separated by "six times the distance between the Sun and Pluto"?

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41960000/jpg /_41960898_planemos_203_eso.jpg

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  4. dont they already have a name for those.. rogues? by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so they found a binary rogue planet system... now theyre just trying to create a new jargonistic name for them so they can be in the history books.. just call a spade a spade already.. "binary rogues"... that's it..

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  5. Re:But you need warp drive first ... by skarphace · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As the prior article (about the moon base) suggests, due to the very slow means of space travel, there is basically no way to deal with a debilitating injury. On Mars, you would die right away because sending a space ship to the planet takes months.
    How is this any different then when Europeans started to explore the Americas? Seriously, death happens. Not everything we do can, or should be 100% safe. Especially when you're doing work in such groundbreaking discovery. Every astronaut knows and accepts the possibility that they may die to further man-kind.
    --
    Bullish Machine Tzar