Slashdot Mirror
A Planet That Orbits Its Star the Wrong Way
Smivs writes "BBC News is reporting that astronomers have discovered the first planet that orbits in the opposite direction to the spin of its star. Planets form out of the same swirling gas cloud that creates a star, so they are expected to orbit in the same direction that the star rotates. The new planet is thought to have been flung into its 'retrograde' orbit by a close encounter with either another planet or with a passing star. The work has been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal for publication. Co-author Coel Hellier, from Keele University in Staffordshire, UK, said planets with retrograde orbits were thought to be rare. 'With everything [in the star system] swirling around the same way and the star spinning the same way, you have to do quite a lot to it to make it go in the opposite direction.' Professor Hellier said a near-collision was probably responsible for this planet's unusual orbit. 'If you have a near-collision, then you'll have a large gravitational slingshot from that interaction,' he explained. 'This is the likeliest explanation. But it might be possible you can do it by gradually perturbing the orbit through the influence of a second planet. So far, we haven't found any evidence of a second planet there.'"
You know, he has this thing about spinning planets the other way around...
Maybe the sun reversed its spin.
Doesn't everything rotate backwards if its from down under?
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you are shorter of breath and one day closer to death
British?
All the other planets keep pointing and saying "You're doing it wrong!"
Anybody want my mod points?
I remember when the first proof of an extra-solar planet was found, and people were amazed. Now we're only mildly fased by a planet whose orbit is probably one in a million.
Amazing how far astronomy has come in the last decade or so.
I wonder how long until we figure out a way to detect inhabited planets. Can't be too far off.
but wouldn't this type of retrograde orbit be possible if the planet had gone "rouge" from it's original system and was then captured in the gravity well of its current parent star?
Are we forgetting the Pauli Exclusion Principle? There must have been another planet in that orbit at some point causing the opposite spin since no 2 orbiting bodies can occupy the same quantum state unless they have opposite spins.
They determine the orbit by watching as the planet passes in front of the star. Somehow they determine which way the star spins and see the two are different. It doesn't matter if you see it from above or below.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
"...you can do it by gradually perturbing the orbit through the influence of a second planet" claims the article.
But, if it were to happen slowly, doesn't that imply that at some point it has a minimal orbital speed (if that's the correct term), and would fall right in? Seems to me that if it reversed direction, it must have been a relatively quick event. Unless, perhaps, the planet ends up being sent away from the star, and is then recaptured in a retrograde orbit. But, that's still not a "gradual perturbation."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Oooh ooh, it's called a DoppelgÃnger! And there are people there just like us.
IIRC, our solar system was not original part of the Milky Way, but was from some smaller dwarf galaxy that got absorbed into it. There could have been a parallel here which might be easier to explain it.
that this is the first planet found with such an orbit. Would it not require a lengthy sequence of "just right" nudges to produce that outcome? Statistically, wouldn't the second planet be just as likely to pull the first back toward an equatorial orbit on each encounter? Are the orbital mechanics such that retrograde planets coexisting with prograde planets is more stable than, say, having planets end up in polar or high inclination orbits?
Finally, the article explains how they can tell which direction the planet crosses the star, but how do you tell which way the star is rotating?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Well, in our solar system at least one planet is spinning the other way around: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_venus_spin_the_other_way It's not quite the same like orbiting into the opposite direction, but the Venus apparently received a nudge or two as well in order to spin the other way around. Such accidents appear to happen.
planets with retrograde orbits were thought to be rare
Since this is the only one that's been found, I'd say that planets with retrograde orbits are still thought to be rare.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
You mean its an Australian planet, mate?
rewriting history since 2109
While it is possible, it would probably be extremely unlikely. The odds are pretty slim for a planet to be stripped from one star and then captured again by another star. Space is just too damn empty, on average there is only 1 star per cubic parsec and the orbit of earth is 1/206625 pc.
Interactions with other giant planets in the system are probably the most likely explanation as they talk about in the article. Three-body interactions can have pretty crazy outcomes, astrophysically and for life in general :)
How about a direct capture, from an near-encounter with another star? That is, similar to the explanation in TFA, except that the planet originally belonged to the other star.
Why does everything different have to be labeled 'wrong'?
Have gnu, will travel.
Instead of spinning the "wrong" way, couldn't the planet just have a 180 degree axial tilt, sort of like Uranus has a pretty steep 97 degree tilt. At 180 degrees, it would be right sight up by a different perspective, but spinning the opposite direction as the star.
Morphing Software
the planet wasn't spawned by that particular star? Maybe it's a capture. I would imagine that a capture doesn't have to go with the spin, or against the spin - it could orbit from pole to pole.
Phhhht. I should have been an astronomer, huh?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Um, except for Venus, Uranus and Pluto anyway. If you count Pluto as a planet.
Maybe the current version could be used to simulate how this happened? :P
I used to play with that thing in the high school library far too much during library classes (hey, this was before schools had the internet).
It was always fun making the moon crash into earth.
This evokes that scene from "Trains Planes and Automobiles"......
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Couldn't it be a rogue planet that was captured into orbit due to it coming in at that direction?
I can't imagine something impacting a planet and making it reverse direction without turning it into dust. And I can't imagine the odds of something near-missing precisely right to cause a complete reversal in direction. I would think a rogue planet-like object getting captured traveling the opposite direction would be far more likely.
I know planets will can get kicked off their orbits from an impact and be launched out into the great emptiness, I recall reading a slashdot article on that many many moons ago....
Also, given the fact that we found this situation - considering the percentage of planets we have observed versus the amount of planets out there (which would be an extremely small percent), I would think it's likely that this is not an uncommon occurance.
(I am not a professional in anything other than database programming, but I do read up on astrophysics stuff for fun cause it's interesting. I'm sure I'm wrong in 87 different ways, feel free to let me know =)
But it might be possible you can do it by gradually perturbing the orbit through the influence of a second planet. So far, we haven't found any evidence of a second planet there.
Wouldn't a slowly perturbed planet fall into it's star once it reached stand still or near to it? Or maybe it was perturbed while way out far from the star, and then managed to reverse and miss the star as it fell towards it, and somehow got a near circular orbit again. I'd like to see what the path for a theoretical gradual perturbation and orbit reversal would look like.
It is probably not a planet. It is a Death Star. Lord Vader is near!
I'm not entirely sure how, but I know global warming is involved in some way.
... can't we send Superman to make it spin the other way to have normal time and not going back in time? :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
*point laugh* Look it's failplanet!!!!
oogly boogly!
It's pretty obvious the planets backwards orbit is due to a drunk space bum playing pool with planets
Thanks for the laugh. That is one of my all-time favorite comedy scenes. I laugh every time I think of it.
Aliens were bored on their planet, so they decided to make it unique.
... be named Quatermass and he say something memorable like "this planet, this orb, going the wrong way 'round, dooms us all as every planet in the universe will follow. It's only a matter of time before we plummet into the sun."
nah, god just didn't care. He knew it was wrong but he didn't think anyone would ever look there. You know, like that corner of the basement you haven't bothered dusting, or that one obsolete comment you never removed from your code. No one will see it, no one will care.
Planet X???? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1852090586726362812
Did you feel that tremor? It was from millions of astrologist/astrology "practitioners" shuddering at the thought of a planet's permanent retrograde status!
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
How do they know which way the star spins? Are they just assuming it is spinning in the same direction as its orbit around the galaxy? Why can't the entire system be retrograde?
I suppose since they can detect the direction the planet orbits, they can measure the blue shift and red shift of the advancing and receding sides of the spinning star, and know that way.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Another possibility is that the planet does not originate from the star it is orbiting. For example, the planet may have been in an unstable orbit around star 'A' and eventually escaped from star 'A' it traveled through space until it was caught in the gravitation of star 'B' and began to orbit. The orbit of the planet around star 'B' would be based more on the direction and angle it approached star 'B' as opposed to the spin of star 'B'
Just my theory.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Unless you go to their Australia, then it evens things out. But hell, do you get a bigass headache.
Table-ized A.I.
Do toilet flushes swirl in the opposite direction on this planet?
What? Up?
.
I suspect that the orbit was flipped over the top of the star (y axis) by a gravitational influence. The gravitational influence could have come from a neighboring star above the star's orbital plane. This would pull a planet above the plane, and with enough time, it may have flipped it to the opposite orbit.
How does this happen? TFA is an article about a planet that has retrograde motion and someone manages to whip out a car analogy. And it even sort of makes sense. Well played, sir. Well played.
No matter how much proof of intelligence and competence we send, the earthlings just don't get it.
In less than one day! http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17613-second-backwards-planet-found-a-day-after-the-first.html
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
Yup, a pretty silly statement when the observation was of the first one discovered.
Still a silly statement after the second one discovered, the very next day:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17613-second-backwards-planet-found-a-day-after-the-first.html
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
This planet perhaps just came into existence and just didn't know. Just another newbie that didn't read the FAQ.
It's not going the wrong way... It's doing exactly what it should be doing in exactly the right way we just haven't found a logic reason for it.
One way would be to observe the red- or blue-shift of the star's spectral lines at the edges of the star. The part with the highest blue shift is coming toward you, the part with the highest red shift is moving away. Connect them with a line and you've got the plane in which the star rotates.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Just like when NASA sent pictures of 2 galaxies converging and keeping their spin, what happens if 2 solar systems converge, and even then, what happens if one is spinning one way and the other is spinning the opposite, technically that can't be good either for solar systems OR galaxies!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)
triton goes the wrong way around neptune because it was captured from the planetoid kuiper belt junk around and beyond neptune, not formed there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(moon)#Capture
hypothetically then, this new planet was captured by the star, but not from elsewhere in that star system of course, but from interstellar space
who knows what else is lying in the cold and the dark out there
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Prime candidate is molecular oxygen in an atmosphere which is highly unstable. But there are other chemical candidates too.
"Planets form out of the same swirling gas cloud that creates a star" ... say they!
Err... Oh. Do they? How do you know that? When did someone observe all planets forming, to make this extremely certain statement? When has someone observed a single planet forming from start to finish?
How do you know that? Answer: Well, that is what our models say.
oh. So your model can only generate planets this way, I see. Perhaps they should say:
"Planets in our models form out of the same swirling gas cloud that creates a star" ... but then they have to end with the statement: "Having observed planets appearing to have not formed this way, we conclude that our model is a pile of crap." Oh, and please give us some more money.
Has anybody considered that maybe the planet itself did not originate from within the system who's star it is orbiting.
kill all niggers
Kill does not work like that. Try this: $ killall nigger
Ezekiel 23:20
Perhaps this was once a binary star system. The planet was orbiting the *other* star. Something (???) happened to the other star and the planet was recaptured by the remaining star.
Just a thought.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
It's obviously populated with lots of politicians -- their combined spin is causing the inclination changes. Keep your eyes peeled because there's bound to be another backflip sometime soon.