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.'"

54 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe it was Kal-El? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You know, he has this thing about spinning planets the other way around...

  2. Why do they blame the planet? by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe the sun reversed its spin.

    1. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by eebra82 · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't blame the planet, they blame a planet or a big body that passed its orbit.

      The star is not a likely cause for its abnormal rotation, although that would make it far more interesting.

    2. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by srothroc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way I read it is that the GP is not saying that the star CAUSED the retrograde orbit -- he's asking why everyone's asking how the PLANET's orbit changed rather than asking why the star's spin changed. For a car analogy.. it's like asking why the car pissed off the dog that's chasing it rather than why the dog is chasing the car.

    3. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sun's don't go both ways. They're all either straight or gay.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on what gets perturbed, I guess.

      Try not to think just in two dimensions. Imagine the orbit as a very large ring. Instead of thinking of it shrinking, imagine the ring pivoting out of the usual orbital plane. Imagine this ring slowly rotating. Eventually, it'll settle back to the plane yet the planet will be orbiting backwards relative the the original and the star's rotation.

    5. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by BluBrick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sun's don't go both ways. They're all either straight or gay.

      Maybe, but who's to say it can't be turned? It's orbital ring got invaded by a foreign object. Maybe this particular sun, you know, liked the experience?

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    6. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if the sun was turned on it's axis 180 degrees (turning it upside down). It would appear that the planet is therefore orbiting in the wrong direction.

      Could this perhaps been the effect of another star passing nearby and changing the axis of the star rather than flipping the orbit of the planet?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by Gerzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have little understanding of how science works and how scientists actually think. If you want to talk about cherished theories that can't be changed talk to creationists and theologians. If you want to talk about theories that explain and simulate the universe that are regularly changed, usually but not always gradually, learn the scientific method and about science.

      I have been trained as a physicist and a scientist and the first lessons they begin teaching(besides calculus and the other basic courses) are that science is the process of curiosity, reason and doubt. It is a collaborative effort that is larger than any single person and it is a slow struggle where answering one question means opening up many many more. It is the process of expanding the universe by exploring the world around us and seeing how big, vast and wonderful our lives and this world really are.

      Religion too often gives us the like of seven days, 6000 years and a wet ball of mud to live on, with harps and clouds if you've been good afterward. Its comforting but it is small.

    8. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by AlecC · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The "dust cloud" theory only states that the majority of planets should rotate with their sun. There are a number of known mechanisms, some discusses in TFA, which can produce retrograde motion. We have several moons in the solar system showing retrograde motion. So this does absolutely nothing to disturb current theories of planet formation - you would have to find dozens of these to do that. It just appears that, in this case, one of several interesting events must have happened, and it might be worth looking for evidence of such an event. For example, if it were a near collision, it would be worth backtracking the paths of nearby stars to see if they were candidates for this decision.

      This is not a "the current rules are broken" announcement, but a "hey, something interesting" announcement.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    9. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by megrims · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You haven't had too many good discussions with Theologians, have you?

      Theology and science are sibling disciplines, addressing different issues. You find lots of curiosity, reason and doubt in both.

      Seven days, 6k years, etc. aren't theology. I agree entirely with your conclusion there. These kind of small, restrictive ideas come from the same kind of (selective) mindlessness that you can often find in militant atheism.

      I agree with your response to the GP, for the record.

    10. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Religion too often gives us the like of seven days, 6000 years and a wet ball of mud to live on, with harps and clouds if you've been good afterward.

      Of course religion doesn't give you a wet ball of mud. It gives you a wet flat plane of mud, with water above it (read Genesis).

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    11. Re:Why do they blame the planet? by flaming+error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, what a free-your-mind moment I had reading that.

      A similar scenario could be that the sun somehow turned upside down. Maybe the sun spins in two dimensions: around the expected axis perpendicular to the orbital plane, and also an axis parallel to the orbital plane.

  3. Maybe its in the southern hemisphere of that star? by randy+of+the+redwood · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  4. which left? by lsdi · · Score: 2, Funny

    British?

    1. Re:which left? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  5. Poor Planet by russlar · · Score: 5, Funny

    All the other planets keep pointing and saying "You're doing it wrong!"

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
    1. Re:Poor Planet by Normal+Dan · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's different. Let's destroy it.

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
  6. I'm no astrophysicist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:I'm no astrophysicist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A rouge planet

      What does Mars have to do with this?

    2. Re:I'm no astrophysicist... by Slammer64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's rogue dammit, ROGUE!

    3. Re:I'm no astrophysicist... by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 4, Funny

      What happens if it goes to plaid, though?

    4. Re:I'm no astrophysicist... by MightyDrunken · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

      While possible the idea is less likely then a close encounter with another planet in the solar system. The nearest solar system to ours is about 4 light years away, in between is a whole lot of nothing and a bit of gas. For the solar system to capture a rogue planet it would have to pass very closely and be travelling fairly slowly.

      There is a fair amount of evidence for a very turbulent beginning to our solar system.

  7. "But it might be possible... by msauve · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "...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
    1. Re:"But it might be possible... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Er, no. The idea is that the inclination of the orbit keeps getting larger until the planet is orbiting "backwards." The planet doesn't stop and reverse its orbit.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    2. Re:"But it might be possible... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. Here's the ASCII art.

      <--O--<

      ^
      -
        O
         -
          ^

         ^
         -
         O
         -
         ^

           ^
          -
         O
        -
      ^

      >--O-->

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:"But it might be possible... by gehrehmee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In this case, it's really the angle of the orbit that would be perturbed. Eventually it would be orbiting above and below the north and south poles of the star, and then perturbed even further until it was rotating the wrong direction. In that sense, it's actually orbiting in the correct direction, just offset 180degrees.

      A similar explanation is often used to describe the fact that Uranus rotates clockwise, whereas all the other planets in our solar system rotate counter-clockwise. (Note, rotation != revolution. Rotation == spin, revolution = orbit). Effectively, virtually all the angular momentum of any given solar system is in the same direction. The odd object's motion may be twisted into appearing the wrong way by some dramatic celestial event.

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
    4. Re:"But it might be possible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To put this in analogy form:
      Picture someone making a pizza, when they spin it and throw it up in the air it lands spinning the same way. But if the pizza flips over in mid-air the rotation will be reversed when it lands but it didn't have to stop and reverse direction to do it.

      Oh, and somehow a car is involved.

    5. Re:"But it might be possible... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...you can do it by gradually perturbing the orbit through the influence of a second planet" claims the article.

      Even if I had a second planet, I could probably figure out waaay more productive things to do with it than piss off the orbit of my first planet. That kind of puerile use of a natural resource on such a massive scale would probably only serve to perpetuate the vicious cycle of interplanetary-domestic-violence that has ruined so many healthy, loving solar systems. On behalf of Solar Family Therapists everywhere I'm ashamed that this Prof. Hellier condones such a flagrant misuse of such a precious resource.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    6. Re:"But it might be possible... by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

      In a 2 dimensional universe, yes. In this one? No. It implies that the plane of the orbit rotates through 180 degrees much like (here it comes everyone) a car tyre when you do a U-turn. It keeps rotating but eventually ends up going the other way.

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    7. Re:"But it might be possible... by gehrehmee · · Score: 3, Informative

      A similar explanation is often used to describe the fact that Uranus rotates clockwise...

      Er, Venus I mean. Uranus is slightly stranger...

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
  8. Re:Losing it's luster by colonelxc · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're already working on that; I read something recently about a probe that they're testing on Earth right now (it's in space, looking at Earth as a control).

    I think you mean the LCROSS Spacecraft

  9. Opposite spin by StartCom · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. were thought to be rare? by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:were thought to be rare? by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There have only been a few hundred extra-solar planets found, so finding one that has a retrograde orbit is surprising if they were thought to be much less probable than 0.5% or so.

      It all depends on the meaning of "rare", which is one of those innumerate words we ought to be doing without.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  11. Re:Maybe its in the southern hemisphere of that st by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mean its an Australian planet, mate?

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  12. Re:Odd, then... by needs2bfree · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would think that one side of the star would be blueshifted, the other side redshifted ever so slightly.
    I also wonder if the planet suffers more collisions than it would otherwise.

  13. Re:Losing it's luster by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Informative

    However, we're still unable to detect Earth-size planets in other star systems, as most of the planets we've detected are Jupiter-sized or more, but they are detecting progressively smaller planets.

    You're a bit behind on that. Planets that are well within one order of magnitude of the size of Earth have been discovered. This one may be less than twice the size of Earth.

  14. Re:Captured object? by russotto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The odds are pretty slim for a planet to be stripped from one star and then captured again by another star.

    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.

  15. You insensitive clods! by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does everything different have to be labeled 'wrong'?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  16. Axial Tilt? by Ark42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Lets ask Dr. Pauli by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not as apples to oranges as you think. Astronomical models are actually what inspired the model of the atom and some of the basic quantum theories.

  18. Re:Losing it's luster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was looking at the stars one evening and the thought occurred to me that every star harbors a hideous mess; an immense collection of orbiting debris ranging from bloated gas giants with dozens of exotic moons to mangled chunks of gold weighing billions of tons. Those nice neat little points of light are actually solar systems, every bit as rich and complex as our own. Life, at least in primitive forms, is probably a common afterthought.

    Think about the planet you're on now. Everything beyond iron is the shrapnel of stellar detonations coalesced and melted into a ball of metal orbiting the sun. Staggering quantities of baryons mushed together in weird configurations, colliding, erupting and aging for billions of years. Somewhere there is a near perfect sphere of nickel weighing five Earths and orbiting a black hole. It will be destroyed next week when it collides with and vanishes forever into the guts of an 9 billion year old brown dwarf. It will have never been observed by anything more sentient than a dusty comet.

    When you really think about it the universe is creepy.

    Extrasolar astronomy requires extraordinary equipment. We need to build more of it and figure out what the universe looks like below cosmological scales because we haven't got the first clue what's really out there. Humans were simply not endowed by nature with sufficient imagination to anticipate more than a small fraction of all the crazy shit we're going to find.

  19. You are going to Kill Someone...... by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    This evokes that scene from "Trains Planes and Automobiles"......

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  20. Re:Losing it's luster by chromas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It already hasn't

  21. Re:Not the first by icegreentea · · Score: 4, Informative

    Venus SPINS opposite of the rest of planets. It orbits in the same direction. Uranus' axis of rotation is rotated 90 degrees, so it lies nearly in the solar plane. But it orbits like the rest of the planets. Pluto has a retarded orbit (no, that's not a scientific term), but its still going in the same direction. You mixed up orbit and rotation.

  22. Is it really a planet? by xaboo · · Score: 2, Funny

    It is probably not a planet. It is a Death Star. Lord Vader is near!

  23. Re:Losing it's luster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Humans were simply not endowed by nature with sufficient imagination to anticipate more than a small fraction of all the crazy shit we've already found.

  24. Re:Odd, then... by yo303 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nope. It would just take one swift hit normal to the plane of the ecliptic to cause the angle of inclination to steadily change until it was revolving backward. However, the inclination may still be changing for all I know.

    Nope. Each swift hit (delta-momentum) results in a single orbit change. A hit normal to the ecliptic is the most efficient in terms of angle-of-inclination change, but it does not cause a continuing inclination change.

  25. Re:Losing it's luster by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Informative

    why do you slashfucks keep using this order of magnitude shit even when it doesn't apply? do you really think it makes you look smart? orders of magnitude are used in a very specific fashion that even a 2nd grader can understand but you guys keep throwing it out there like it's a generalization. it's fucking not.

    What's wrong with what he said? He said planets within an order of magnitude have been found. That means planets up to ten times as massive as the earth or as small as on tenth of the earth. He then points to an example where the planet is estimated to be half the size of earth.

    Maybe you should brush up on simple 2nd grade mathematics principles before taking a pitchfork out and lighting that flaming brand?

    As for a generalization, it can very well be one. It compares like objects within a scale that doesn't require any other measurements. You can say that one object is 2 magnitudes bigger than another if it is 100 times the size. You don't need to measure either object in any units.

    So either get used to us "slashfucks" using scientifically agreed to and mathematically correct statements even if you don't understand them, or well, feel free to go find a site more suited to your level. Perhaps something with lolcatz or photos and a rating system?

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  26. Re:Losing it's luster by Deadstick · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I remember when the first proof of an extra-solar planet was found, and people were amazed.

    Well, maybe you were amazed. The existence of extra-solar planets has never been in serious doubt; we went a long time without finding any for the simple reason that they are extremely hard to detect. There were many supposed observations that fizzled out in experimental error, and that resulted in a lot of skepticism being attached to further finds. Now that we have the proper measurement techniques, the discoveries are coming at a rate of a dozen or more per year.

    Look at it this way. Suppose you and I are standing on two mountaintops a few miles apart on a dark moonless night. I have a five-cell flashlight and one of those war-surplus searchlights they use to advertise new furniture stores. If I point the flashlight at you and turn it on, you'll see it easily.

    Now suppose I point the searchlight at you and turn it on. Then I turn the flashlight on again -- or maybe I don't. Can you tell whether it's on or not?

    That is approximately the problem involved in finding an extrasolar planet.

    rj

  27. Another possibility by fireman+sam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  28. Dumb earthlings.. by Important+Remark · · Score: 2, Funny

    No matter how much proof of intelligence and competence we send, the earthlings just don't get it.

  29. Second one found! by Fengpost · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin