Slashdot Mirror
Astrophysicists Find "Impossible" Planet
SpuriousLogic writes "Scientists have discovered a planet that shouldn't exist. The finding, they say, could alter our understanding of orbital dynamics, a field considered pretty well settled since the time of astronomer Johannes Kepler 400 years ago.
The planet is known as a 'hot Jupiter,' a gas giant orbiting the star Wasp-18, about 330 light years from Earth. The planet, Wasp-18b, is so close to the star that it completes a full orbit (its "year") in less than an Earth day, according to the research, which was published in the journal Nature.
Of the more than 370 exoplanets — planets orbiting stars other than our sun — discovered so far, this is just the second with such a close orbit.
The problem is that a planet that close should be consumed by its parent star in less than a million years, say the authors at Keele University in England. The star Wasp-18 is believed to be about a billion years old, and since stars and the planets around them are thought to form at the same time, Wasp-18b should have been reduced to cinders ages ago."
...IT'S A TRAP!!!!!
RFC2119
Does anyone else feel that this planet might be able to defy conventional orbital mechanics through the power of Concentrated Evil?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
This study does demonstrate that either the measurements are wrong or our understanding of orbital dynamics is wrong. Knowing the former is important because it tells us we have to alter how we make the measurements and knowing the latter is important because it tells us we have to alter our understanding of physics. So it's the very antithesis of hubris.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
It's Disaster Area's stage in a parking orbit.
Perhaps it was thrown from a different solar system and captured by its star.
Free Martian Whores!
The Beast is imprisoned there!
Not necessarily. Maybe something knocked it out of its regular orbit and it's spiraling into the star. Maybe we're just witnessing its death.
Why do you think physicists need to visit a planet to be able to make reliable measurements about them? I would expect that they can have confidence in their measuring equipment in the same way that you can have confidence that the sun will rise in the morning. After all, you have never been there, how can you know anything about how it works?
perhaps it's spiraling to its demise after billions of years in a decaying orbit.
Its the Impossible Planet tell him to look for The Satan Pit
So if the orbit is decaying, we'll be able to measure it in 10 years, otherwise there will be useful data to refine theories about tidal forces in the surfaces of stars.
Interesting how in the article, they never use the word "impossible". Infact, they actually put forward a handful of possible (although unlikely)ways that this may have occurred.
There's bazillions of things that are unlikely to happen, but the universe is a big place. While we can't predict which particular weird thing we might observe next time, we shouldn't be all that surprised that weirdness is out there.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
That would fall under "our understanding of orbital dynamics is wrong".
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Hmm, I was trying to find a good analogy. This isn't a good one. I was thinking about a prototype jet, and why would one belive that it should fly on its first test flight. Experiments have experimental error. But any researcher who is worth their salt has some idea of how large that error is. Basically, you are accusing the researchers of incompetence. Have you ever used binoculars? Why do you trust what you see, if you haven't been there to see it yourself?
...formed one billion years ago, but originally much more distant from the star. But its orbit was not stable, approaching quickly (in astronomical time) to the star; and we're just lucky to have found it in the final stage of the death spiral. If this is the case, it may even be possible to watch the final spectacle in a timeframe reasonable for human scale (a few thousand years, perhaps centuries, or even less).
Wild speculation of course... but just to be safe, I'm immediately canceling all my plans of space vacations near the Wasp18 system. I never liked wasps anyway.
How presumptuous is it for these physicists to make claims about exoplanets, when no one has been able to visit them to confirm anything that our measurements are telling us *might* be out there? How confident is astrophysics in what they're seeing and interpreting?
The error bars are published along with the data, you know. There's no presumption here. These astronomers are presenting data and then interpreting the results in order to suggest probably implications.
Why is it that every "scientists find something new and try to understand it" article on Slashdot prompts comments that get modded up (why is the parent +4 insightful?!) for complaining that arrogant scientists are making stuff up and leaping to conclusions?
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Perhaps instead of a hot Jupiter what they have found is a cold sun?
"Oh wait, I just forgot to add resistance." - Quoted by my high school physics teacher. There are plenty of human error involved with not applying the laws of physics correctly. Let's not all get on the bandwagon just yet that we have broken the laws of physics. I doubt even the scientists involved believe this, it's just another slow news day at the LA times and they're trying to make something big out of something little.
Presumptuous?? Isn't that how science is meant to work - collect data, try and find patterns, make presumptions (hypothesises) about the underlying systems, and then collect more data to see if their presumptions are born out.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov
This sig all sigs devours
we're actually watching the planet in the process of being consumed
which would be highly unlikely, to get that timing right, as there's a window of only a couple thousand years in which we could see that happen, but maybe that's what we're really seeing
in which case, rather than revise orbital dynamics, this planet could contribute to our understanding of astrophysics/ michael bay style thermodynamics by allowing us to watch a jupiter sized planet ripped to smithereens in real time
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
from TFA:
A second possibility is that the planet hasn't been in its current position very long, Hellier said. Wasp-18b could have spiraled inward to its current position over millions of years. It may have been bumped out of its original orbit by another planet, for example.
"However, that does not solve the problem," Hellier said, because the planet's lifetime should still be very short and it would be very unlikely for his team to find it where it did.
hth
It implies no such thing. Given the evidence, I would suggest that by far the most likely explanation is something that the authors of paper themselves suggest; something has happened since to knock a planet into a close orbit of the star. There are many explanations that don't require a modification of orbital mechanics (pretty much any modification that is big enough to produce this planet with no external influence, would give an effect that is observable within out solar system), why assume that such a modification is required? The slashdot headline is inflammatory, it is a "puzzle" (the article headline), not "impossible" (the slashdot headline).
This story appeared in USA Today yesterday. From the article:
Putting aside the sensationalist journalism (calling it a "suicidal planet"), it appears that its proximity to its star is causing plasma tides on the star (similar to the tides we have here on Earth due to the Moon), and those tides are warping the planets orbit.
Best "String" Ever!
Your news program sucks. 11 is too late. I'm in bed by then.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
This is the problem with science journalism...it tries to jazz up stories to make them more interesting to the layperson, but in the process ends up making scientists look like idiots. I seriously doubt these astrophysicists discovered this planet and immediately ran to the nearest reporter, and breathlessly declared that 400 years of accumulated knowledge in orbital dynamics is wrong because they just discovered an "impossible" planet.
What probably happened is something more like this:
An astrophysicist and a journalist sit at a bar after a long day's work looking through telescopes/making shit up.
Journalist: Anything interesting happen today?
Astrophysicist: Actually, yes. We discovered a planet orbiting around another star.
Journalist: Another one? I said interesting, not yet another stupid gas-ball orbiting around another star...that's page H12 at best.
Astrophysicist: Well, the funny thing is, this star is orbiting closer to its star than it ought to be able to...so it's kind of weird.
Journalist: (rolling eyes) So what?
Astrophysicist: The orbit its in should be unstable...it should eventually fall into the star and burn up.
Journalist: Okay, so we have some planet that might be about to burn up...okay, we're probably page 5C with that one.
Astrophysicist: Sure, that's probably what will happen. Of course, if the orbit its in is somehow stable, which is impossible, that would mean 400 years of understanding in orbital dynamics is wrong...(chuckles)...but of course that's ridiculous.
Journalist: 400 years of physics wrong? Impossible planet? I smell a Pulitzer! To the presses!
Astrophysicist: Hey, wait! Come back! That's not what I said...Oh well, at least I can use his article in my next grant application.
Aaaaaand...scene!
Absolutely. However, scientists get nervous when they see something this unlikely, especially with such a small sample of similar systems to date. Often, such weirdness means something else is going on that we didn't consider, so the nervousness is justifiable in the general case.
Or maybe that's one fucking badass planet. The lesson to be learned here is do not fuck with Wasp-18b.
Hah, tougher than Chuck Norris, indeed.
Scientists calculated the weather conditions on a similar "hot Jupiter", HD 189733b, and came up with some pretty amazing results. HD 189733b is locked into synchronous orbit around its parent star in the same manner that the moon orbits the Earth, in that the rotational period directly matches the orbital period (which is fairly common for close orbiting planets, it is very plausible that Wasp 18b could be a similar story), leaving one side of the planet perpetually day, the other perpetually night. As the planet is only 3 million miles from its parent star, it was not overly surprising to find daytime highs of 2,000 - 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. What was surprising, however, was the nighttime temperature of roughly 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit! This indicates that the atmosphere is incredibly efficient at transferring heat, which means a lot of "air" (NOTE: The atmosphere of HD 189733b is NOT air, but a completely alien mixture of gasses.) moving around. When they calculated the winds that would be necessary to sustain such heat transfer, it was determined that HD 189733b would need to sustain windspeeds of approximately 7,000 mph, making Hurricane Katrina look like a nice ocean breeze by comparison. The weather conditions on Wasp 18b are likely similar; any beings that lived there would indeed have to be extremely tough, and Chuck Norris would most likely be checking his closet for them before going to bed.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Fox News Journalist: Impossible planet discovered. Will Obama's nazi socialist policies tax the good citizens of Wasp-18b until they commit suicide by diving into their sun? Find out at 8pm on The Factor!
MSNBC Journalist: Impossible planet discovered. Will Dick Cheney come back to power and invade it on false pretenses? Find out at 8pm on Countdown!
CNN Journalist: Impossible planet discovered. Watch our exciting report wherein we will use cutting edge technology to display an image of this planet above a floating pie chart!
Tabloid Journalist: Loch Ness Monster seen again! Read the shocking new evidence that proves she hails from Wasp-18b!
Slashdot Editor: Astrophysicists Find "Impossible" Planet
Different Slashdot Editor a week later: Astrophysicists Find "Impossible" Planet
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
> Queue the 'Killer meteor will come within 100 miles of earth!' too as the
> scientists ramp up their efforts to get funding.
Them getting funding for things like LINEAR is, of course, really silly
compared to:
"Oh look, honey, a shooting star! Quick...let's make a wish!"
"Wow, honey, that IS a beautiful shooting star!"
"I can still see it...you too, right?"
"That shooting star is...farking BIG!"
"Is it just me or is this gettin' creepy?"
"Now I can hear it too :-/"
WHOOOOOOSH........KABOOM!!!!!
[insert earth tremors, tidal waves and general catastrophe here]
Well, one in a million chances do crop up nine times out of ten.
which is totally what she said
A DROPDOWN BOX IS A VERY VERY STUPID MECHANISM FOR MODERATION.
Unfortunately not all browsers reliably support the Hot Branding Iron control ...
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Al Gore: This proves that global warming exists, and is caused by man!
Internet Journalist: Al Gore claims that he invented Wasp-18b.
GW Crowd: Al Gore, the inventor of the internet, claims that man created Wasp-18b.
Slashdot: Al Gore crates the innernet.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
It's almost certain that the journalists never talked to the scientists at all... Nature comes out weekly and there is an embargoed press release that is sent out to media outlets with a short synopsis/blurb of this weeks articles. Science journalists look it over and see whether there is anything particularly cool for the science section this week (i.e. nothing too abstract like particle physics) and then write up something quick for that weeks science section often just based on the press release (they may or may not read the actual article, which are often aimed at specialists and can be a difficult read at times). Longer form articles in the week-end paper usually include actually contacting the guys who did the study, but if there is no direct quote from the actual scientist who wrote the paper in the newspaper story then chances are high there was no scientist-journalist contact at all, and chances are almost as high that the journalist did not read the actual study, just the press release from Nature (after all the study was just published today).
Note to Slashdot admins: A DROPDOWN BOX IS A VERY VERY STUPID MECHANISM FOR MODERATION. That is all.
Yea! Why isn't it command-line based like other good user interfaces?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
sudo mod parent +1 insightful
password: **********
modding.... [35%]
...there's only a 1 in 1000 chance it would be observable now. We've found less than 1000 exoplanets, so the math doesn't work.
That's not how it works. Suppose I pick a number between 1 and 1000 at random. Then, suppose I roll a 1000 sided die. Odds are 1 in 1000 that those numbers will match, but that doesn't mean I can't roll the die and match those two numbers with less than 1000 throws. I might match the numbers on the very first throw! It just means I probably shouldn't bet my retirement on matching those numbers on any given throw.
Similarly, if the odds of discovering a planet such as Wasp18b are 1 in 1000, that doesn't mean that, "we've found less than 1000 planets, so we couldn't possibly have found such a planet yet." It just means that if I observe 1000 planets, most likely only one of them will be like Wasp18b. It could be the first one I observe, the 99th, the 1000th or any one in between.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
You are correct. By way of illustration, consider the following. In a bridge game I, as the dealer, distribute the cards resulting in an assemblage of four distinct hands. What is the probability of any single deal producing that particular constellation of hands? The rigorous answer is 1 in 52!/(13!)^4 = 1/53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000. Clearly, it is exceedingly unlikely that I would have dealt those specific hands but, yet, here we are... By the way, this is the precise error that you frequently see Intelligent Design people make when they say things such as: "it would be nearly impossible for a series of random mutations to produce X" which they will often back up with some ridiculous mathematical formula which shows how improbabilities multiply throughout the chain of events. These sort of statements often signal that the speaker doesn't really understand the concept of a priori probability and statistics and when and where such concepts can be applied.
Give a man a match: warm him for an instant. Douse him in petrol and set him aflame: warm him for the rest of his life.
Or all the planets 1 through 1000.
The point is that the odds of the next being the "one in a thousand" aren't affected by the results of the previous one.
Absolutely insightful. Too bad that most people don't understand probability and expectation very well. In fact, unlikely events occur every day -- for example, lottery winners are announced every day. The fact that somebody will win is certain; however, that any specific pre-designated person (including me, sadly) will win is highly unlikely.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller