Slashdot Mirror
Giant Planet Nine Times the Mass of Jupiter Found
cremeglace writes "In the late 1990s, astronomers noticed a distinct warp in the disk of dust and gas orbiting a young star some 60 light-years from Earth. Now, using new analytical tools, researchers have discovered a giant planet lurking within the dusty haze. About nine times as massive as Jupiter and composed mainly of gas, the planet is only a few million years old, proving that such enormous planetary bodies can form rapidly."
What's amazing about this is that the images taken of the star clearly show the planet first on one side of the star, and then the other, several years later.
Great, they rebuilt the Death Star a second time and now we found it.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
Ok, IANAA (*not an astronomer) but what's amazing about the planet on one side of the star and then the other several years later? Don't most planets orbit stars at varying rates ("years" to us earthlings)? I'm confused by the fact that it's amazing for a large planet to be orbiting its star.
FWIW, mass isn't the story here; we know of hundreds of planets in that mass range. I would say the story is that two images taken a few years apart show the planet's motion, and that Beta Pic, the parent star, was the first to have a disk seen around it back in the 1980s. This planet explains the warp and other features in the disk, too, that have been known for years! I wrote about this on my Bad Astronomy blog.
*** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
I couldn't help but notice the astrophysicist's last name: Lagrange. Is she related to Joseph-Louis?
I remember reading that too. I think you're right about the density... Jupiter's diameter should be about as large as gas giants get... any more material falling in would simply compress the core more and make it denser. If Jupiter were about 10 times more massive, however, it'd ignite and turn into a small star... so this planet might still be just below that threshold. But maybe since it's so large and diffuse, it might be spinning much faster to counteract all that gravity...
The universe is a pretty big place, or so I have been told. Undoubtedly if you look long enough you will find entities that challenge your preconceived label or definition of what something "IS". In a universal sense, everything is in flux, so all we are really doing is classification of temporal slices that we can deal with in our limited capacity. At exactly what point does a X become a Y? Considering the time frame being measured is so long, and our perspective so short, it becomes a point of debate, depending on what you call one thing in terms of the other.
When do we invade?
The cutoff seems to be somewhat higher, at around 13 times the mass of Jupiter.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So to summarize:
If it shines it's a star.
Else if the mass is greater than the theoretical minimum for fusion (13 Jupiter masses), it is a brown dwarf.
Else if the mass orbits a star or stellar remnant it is a planet
Else it is a 'sub-brown dwarf'
It's a shame the earth is so puny and small - the aliens will never find us!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This mass of this gas giant still isn't enough to get anywhere near minimum star size. Gas giants need to be ~8 times as massive as this porker to even get into the brown dwarf range. Quite amazing when you think about it.
the moon is a star?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People at NASA must have already started looking for water, life on this planet. Wait for a few days, someone out there must have already set a timeline for posting such news on Slashdot.
The moon doesn't shine (in this sense). The moon reflects. Take away the sun, and the moon is dark.
Reflected light doesn't count as "shining". :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
That's no moon. It's a space station.
You think that's mean? I'm from Pluto, you insensitive clod!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why make up “theoretical”-based definitions?
And why the pointless dichotomies?
If it does fusion (no matter the size), it’s at least a brown dwarf, but a better name (star-like) would make more sense.
The more it shines, the more of a star it is.
Else if it orbits something it’s a planet. (That’s what the word means, after all.)
If it doesn’t, it’s something that we don’t have a name for yet, but that we may also call a planet nowadays.
No that does not mean that tiny star can rotate around a huge planet, since by definition there is no such thing.
I see no point though, in arbitrary separations like “planet” “planetoid” “dwarf planet”, “asteroid”, etc.
I’d only say that we have another gradient between the biggest and roundest planet possible, and the most non-uniform rock flying around. And between that rock, and a single molecule of matter. Also maybe a definition relative to the observer, about it being something that you could stand and walk around on without flying away.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Yes, the moon is a star. That is why our landings have always been at night.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.