Slashdot Mirror


Strange New 'Twin' Worlds Found

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.'"

48 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 diersing · · Score: 2, Funny
      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.

      Can it all really be random?

      http://www.venganza.org/

    2. 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.
    3. 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?

    4. 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.

    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 andrewman327 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that Wolfram is the only published and highly regarded scientist really trying hard to think outside of the box now days. If you study the last iterations of the theories of the Universe revolving around the earth, you will see what complexity in trying to make everything fit perfectly.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    8. 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. That's no planemos. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a space station!

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:That's no planemos. by forkazoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, considering the definition of planemo as anything with planetary mass not orbiting a star... A sufficiently large space station / space ship would qualify as a planemo. So, unfortunately, that joke doesn't really apply here. It is, however, still "no moon." :)

  3. Stars... by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Stars can only 'ignite' when enough mass accumulates. It would make sense that often there would be chunks of smaller mass just floating around until they scoop up enough matter into their gravity well to start fusion.

  4. Just a hop, skip and a jump.... by russ1337 · · Score: 3, Funny
    FTFA:
    They go under the official name Oph 162225-240515, or Oph 1622 for short.


    I think we can just stick to "The twins"...
    1. Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump.... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny
      I think we can just stick to "The twins"...
      AKA "Mary Kate" and "Ashley"?
      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Just a hop, skip and a jump.... by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think we can just stick to "The twins"...

      I like Planemo and Planelarry, implying, of course, the future discovery of Planecurly and a receding Planeshemp.

      KFG

  5. 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 Burlap · · Score: 4, Informative

      technically they do... a planetary object by definition needs something to orbit.

      What i think you meen is that a nebula of the right size can form a stelar object that doesnt have the mass for fusion.

    2. 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. Re:Challenging views? by kevco46 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This discovery does have some implications about how these very small objects form. The two theories are essentially (1) they form from very small clumps of dust and gas, just like our sun did but the initial clump is much smaller or (2) they started out as a larger clump, but while they are still trying to accrete much of their mass, a gravitational interaction with a larger star flings them away from the molecular cloud they were born in. Away from the main molecular cloud their is less material for them to accrete and they do not build up as much mass.

      Now, if there was a gravitational interaction most binaries (like this one) would have been broken apart. Astronomers also see evidence for dusty disks around some of these small objects, which would be mostly destroyed if there was an interaction. I'm sure the theorists supporting 2 have some clever idea to explain all this but the evidence right now seem to point towards theory 1.

  6. How did they discover them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Other extra-solar planets were dicovered when the astronomers saw the doppler shift in their stars. These planets do not orbit stars (as far as I can tell from the article) so there's no light to see them and there isn't a star to see any "shifts". So how were these stars discovered? X-Rays? What?

    1. Re:How did they discover them? by MMatessa · · Score: 2, Informative
      From http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-2 9-06.html:

      The researchers discovered the companion candidate in an optical image taken with ESO's 3.5-m New Technology Telescope at La Silla, Chile. They decided to take optical spectra and infrared images of the pair with ESO's 8.2-m Very Large Telescope to make sure that it is a true companion, instead of a foreground or background star that happens to be in the same line of sight. These follow up observations indeed confirmed that both objects are young, at the same distance, and much too cool to be stars. This suggests the two are physically associated.

    2. Re:How did they discover them? by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      While they are not sufficiently massive to spark fusion, they do, in fact radiate in the infrared range, due to gravitational contraction heating.

      KFG

  7. Not dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anticipating a possible question: no, a previously-unknown population of "planemos" can't be the dark matter astronomers are searching for. First, there were enough of them to account for the huge mass of dark matter (some 95 percent of the mass of the universe), we would have seen a lot more of them by now. "Massive compact halo objects", or basically planetoids, brown dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. have been detected (via gravitational lensing), but they are known not to comprise the majority of dark matter due to such bounds on their total mass. Furthermore, from the effects of dark matter on structure formation in the early universe, the cosmic background radiation, and other factors, it is known that "normal" matter can't account for most of the mass of dark matter, either: most of it needs to be in the form of "weakly interactive massive particles" (sort of analogous to neutrinos, except much heavier).

    1. Re:Not dark matter by jtwronski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the somewhat off-topic of dark matter, what is the big deal with scientists searching for all this matter that we can't see? Perhaps I'm missing something really important here, but why is it so important that there might be all this matter in the universe that we can't currently detect? So what if it doesn't glow, or emit x-rays, etc. Aren't we dark matter? It stands to reason to me that the majority of mass in the universe probably isn't glowing or burning, or emitting some cosmic ray that we can detect here on earth. Can somebody with a real clue on this subject chime in, tell me i'm an idiot, and why?

  8. 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!"
  9. Once Again Proving... by vjmurphy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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.'"

    Once again proving that astronomers should not be naming things while drunk. Here's a handy reminder: "Remember the Planemos!"

    --
    Vincent J. Murphy
    Spandex Justice
  10. Makes me wonder about some things. by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok so our Solar System is mostly flat. I mean, the orbits of the planets tend to follow the same orbital plane, with a notable exception of course.

    The reason the planets orbit in the same plane is the same reason rings around celestial bodies like Saturn eventually fall into a common orbital plane: gravity. As the mass collects there is something like a gyroscopic effect, causing a general influence towards the common plane.

    But.. if that's the case, why do we have a planet that doesn't follow the plane? And, also, is it slowly falling into line with the rest? (I think the answer is yes, it is, but I don't know for sure.. at least I think it should be).

    Which leads me to ask.. Was Pluto originally extra-solar? Could it have developed in this eccentric orbit if it were originally part of the solar system when it formed? Is it possible that Pluto somehow, amongst the billions of years our system has been around, floated into orbit here for good, from Out There?

    And if so, if there are enough of these free-floating masses out there, what kind of percentage of the unobservable 'dark matter' might this account for?

    Just a few of my questions,

    TLF

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:Makes me wonder about some things. by tpjunkie · · Score: 5, Informative

      pluto is thought to be a captured kuiper belt object,, meaning that some collision or gravitational interaction with a massive body brought it in towards the inner solar system, which explains its eccentric orbit which is also at a very high inclination to the plane of the ecliptic.

    2. Re:Makes me wonder about some things. by suggsjc · · Score: 3, Funny
      You've got questions...I've got answers

      why do we have a planet that doesn't follow the plane?
      It marches to the beat of a different drummer. Its the "alternative" planet.

      is it slowly falling into line with the rest?
      Yes, they always do.

      Was Pluto originally extra-solar?
      We were all "extra-solar" at one point or another...know what I mean.

      Could it have developed in this eccentric orbit if it were originally part of the solar system when it formed?
      If it were originally a part of the "system" then it wouldn't seem so eccentic now would it?

      Is it possible that Pluto somehow, amongst the billions of years our system has been around, floated into orbit here for good, from Out There?
      Yeah, it got bored and had nothing better to do the next few billion years or so.

      And if so, if there are enough of these free-floating masses out there, what kind of percentage of the unobservable 'dark matter' might this account for?
      Obviouslly, 42

      Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all day.
      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    3. Re:Makes me wonder about some things. by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are incorrect as to why the planets are on the same elliptical plane.

      http://www.nineplanets.org/origin.html
      #3 on that page is the step which explains why the solar system is on the same plane. Pluto being outside that plane is most likely it is actually a kupier belt object and was far enough out from the formation of our sun to not have fully fallen into the accretion disc.

      More information is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disc

      The reason your explanation doesn't work for why the planetary bodies are on the same plane is because they are all in stable orbits. To plane out into a disc they would need to still be falling towards the sun.

      Planetary rings are in the ring pattern because they follow the orbit of the object from which they were created, they are not collected and built up from smaller particles but probably the result of the destruction of a large object.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_rings

    4. Re:Makes me wonder about some things. by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ahh hmm. It was my understanding that the accretion disk of our solar system (the planets) formed due to the combination of gravity and inertia/velocity. I.E. that's why they're all in the same orbital plane.

      The reason your explanation doesn't work for why the planetary bodies are on the same plane is because they are all in stable orbits. To plane out into a disc they would need to still be falling towards the sun.

      But aren't they getting close to the sun all the time? In effect still falling towards it? Seems like it would be perpetual motion were they not?

      TLF

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    5. Re:Makes me wonder about some things. by cswiger2005 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Things moving in empty space come as close to perpetual motion as you're likely to get. However, the orbits of the planets are probably decreasing slightly over time due to the minor friction of the solar wind and mutual gravitational interactions with the other planets (especially Jupiter).

      Also, tidal distortions have an effect which slows the rotation of planets down, especially if they have a relatively big moon orbitting them, until the rotational period and the orbital period match. For example, the moon always presents the same side towards the Earth because of tidal locking, and the Earth probably had about an 18-hour day some billion years ago, and will probably have a 30+ hour day in another billion years

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
  11. Ben Affleck again by krell · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Yes, it's really easy to confuse a ball of rock with a star. I mean, the similarities are so obvious."

    In terms of such stars as Ben Affleck, the similarities do start to build up.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  12. Important question relevant to the issue by JamesP · · Score: 4, Funny

    Which one is the evil twin?

    Thank you , I'll be here all evening!

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  13. Re:Blurring what? by Potor · · Score: 2, Funny
    Yes, it's really easy to confuse a ball of rock ...
    ... like jupiter?
  14. poor name by Burlap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I dont like the name one bit... they have NOTHING to do with planets... they are stelar objects whos mass is simply to low to get their internal temperature high enough for hydrogen fusion.

    IMHO better names would be: stellar dwarfs, non-fusion stars or something along those lines... they arnt planets.

    1. Re:poor name by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about starlet?

      Then we could name heavely bodies after heavenly bodies.

      KFG

  15. Snakes???? by krell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Snakes, on a PLANEMO????

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  16. Pizza Pizza by krell · · Score: 2, Funny

    No need to get all excited because Galactus phoned in to Magrathea for the two-for-one special. Different toppings on each planemo, no less.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  17. Hey I saw this movie! by XJHardware · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first planemo will make a very close approach to Earth. The second will smack right into earth. But by then the spaceships we cobble together with nifty 50's retro-tech will have blasted off with the lucky few colonists to build a new civilization. Too bad with such a small gene pool they'll devolve into slack jawed mouth breathers in a few generations. Looks like the future of reality TV is assured.

    --
    The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
  18. They have it all wrong... by monoqlith · · Score: 2, Funny

    PlanemO's are actually God's cereal.

  19. 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!!
  20. RTFA? by Dieppe · · Score: 3, Informative
    For people who didn't RTFA, the two planets are about 6x the distance from the Sun to Pluto. The image in the article shows two large happy planets practically next to each other.

    Six times the distance from the Sun to Pluto. If you're on one planet you might be lucky to see the tiny dot of the other planet in the night's sky... I don't recall if it said they were orbiting a star (for light) or not. So even the picture is misleading.

  21. Re:Circle each other???? by JesseL · · Score: 4, Informative

    They both orbit around their common center of mass, as do all pairs of orbiting bodies. The moon and earth actually orbit around a point 4700km from the earths center.

    --
    "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  22. 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
  23. Finding Planemo by Joebert · · Score: 3, Funny

    Smell that ?
    It's the smell of rendering farms heating up at Pixar.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  24. see... by kaddeh · · Score: 2, Funny

    this is what happens when the moon gets a bulge :/

  25. Not so strange by FridayBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Although it's interesting that we've now been able to observe such a pair of dim objects in this configuration, I see nothing strange about its existence. Astronomers have known about binary (and trinary) star systems for ages, but those were always easy to spot because they're so luminous. Brown dwarfs, on the other hand, are much harder to find, but thanks to modern technology we've found quite a few and astronomers now believe that they are in general quite numerous. So, what's so strange about two brown dwarfs orbiting one another? Nothing, really. It may be the first time we've found a binary system like this, sure -- great! -- but it's not strange at all; that's just an adjective thrown in by the media to spice the story.