Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jupiter-Sized Alien Planet Is Darkest Ever (Barely) Seen

Posted by timothy on from the none-more-black dept.

thebchuckster writes "The darkest alien world ever spotted by astronomers has been discovered in the outskirts of our galaxy. 'It's darker than the blackest lump of coal, than dark acrylic paint you might paint with. It's bizarre how this huge planet became so absorbent of all the light that hits it,' David Kipping, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics."

28 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Aliens Develop Perfect Solar Power by Warwick+Allison · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's happened to /. titling?

    1. Re:Aliens Develop Perfect Solar Power by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Do you reckon this planet is covered by monoliths? Maybe its going to explode.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  2. That thing from the Fifth Element? by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 2

    Is it that big evil thing from the Fifth Element? Do we need four stones to make it fire a a giant Laser beam at it? Is it going to make evil people leak black tar?

  3. Re:How about #000000 by hcpxvi · · Score: 2

    Is it darker than #000000?
    Nope, they say it reflects "less than 1% of the light falling onto it". So it could be as light as #020202 (but not #030303).

  4. artificial by Darth+Cider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe it's a Dyson sphere.

    1. Re:artificial by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Informative

      But in that case it would encapsulate the star - not circle it.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:artificial by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      But in that case it would encapsulate the star - not circle it.

      Yeah, that's what the engineers told the management, too. But the management didn't believe it. So they built it around the planet instead.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:artificial by GNious · · Score: 2

      Would it be possibly to build a Dyson Sphere around a single star in a binary system?
      Really, I'd like to know :) Am thinking it would be an order of magnitude harder (gravitational shear being 1 possible impediment), but could be? Then covering it is something to absorb sunlight from the other star could make sense ....

    4. Re:artificial by splutty · · Score: 2

      The problem with that being that a Dyson sphere needs to be completely light absorbent on the *inside*, the outside really doesn't matter, although in this case it being light absorbent on the outside would also capture an insignificant amount of light from the primary.

      Always assuming it's a binary system with one star being encapsulated.

      In an SF context, that even makes some modicum of sense, in that you'd still have an actual sun and all...

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    5. Re:artificial by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sure there is a major flaw in the following hypothesis, but couldn't there be a "dyson sphere" around a planet for different reasons? Dyson Spheres are built around a star as a hypothetical optimal method of complete solar harvesting.

      What if a species not quite that advanced built such a shell around their own world? One flaw is how to best simulate their sun for grass/animals. Holes in the sphere? A series of lights, or a few on a track, that go around the world as needed? It would work best if the species were nocturnal (either by natural or "artificial" evolution at this point). Considering this is "Jupiter sized" then this thing would have enough room for twenty-two Earths to go from one end to another at the equator. There could be a whole planet and moon system inside.

      That much surface area and they might be able to easily simulate their sun on planet for wildlife and then some. According to Wikipedia Jupiter's surface area: 6.1419×1010 km2. Cut that in half since even if the sphere doesn't rotate half of it will be facing their sun, and you have the maximum usable space for solar cells or whatever they are using instead. How much energy would that produce? Unless this thing is a relic left behind, they might not need a full blown Dyson Sphere yet.

      According to the article it is in that star's habital zone. So it is in the right spot if it were a converted habital world. Dyson Sphere may not be the correct term, but the concept itself completely off from what could be here.

      Then again, it could be the universe's largest naturally formed piece of coal or we discovered the home hub of the all consuming nanite swarm.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    6. Re:artificial by itsdapead · · Score: 2

      Would it be possibly to build a Dyson Sphere around a single star in a binary system?

      Anything is possible with enough unobtanium, artificial gravity (unless you spin it up to ludicrous speed to make gravity - see Ringworld) and matter transmutation (if you believe the words of thousand-year-old ship's prostitutes).

      Seriously, come back and ask that question when we know how to build a Dyson sphere around a single sun.

      Anyway, I thought the original "Dyson sphere" concept was actually a cloud of satellites dense enough to capture all of the solar energy, rather than the rigid sci-fi version with all its tricky engineering?

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    7. Re:artificial by itsdapead · · Score: 2

      Sure it's possible, but why the hell would they ever do that?

      Pre-Copernican theme park for religious literalists? Just paint stars on the inside.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    8. Re:artificial by stms · · Score: 2

      There is a flaw in the Dyson Sphere concept too it's that to create a (solar) Dyson Sphere it would require more matter than in a given solar system. Which means (amusing you can't create matter from energy extremely efficiently) would need to transport matter from another solar system to complete it likely needing to destroy at least one other star in the process. So unless a Society has settled and depleted every solar system in the galaxy it's more efficient to move part of your society to another solar system (think Firefly). Having said all that a planet sized Dyson spear is a much more likely concept.

    9. Re:artificial by Toonol · · Score: 2

      You are correct, although I don't think there is any real stipulation that said densely packed cloud of satellites can't be attached to one another and therefore become a solid mass.

      Orbital requirements. You'll need some satellites orbiting over the poles. If the satellites are attached to each other, the only satellites that are truly 'orbiting' are around the equator. The rest are moving too slow, and would fall into the sun without enough structural support to hold them aloft. Hence, unobtanium.

      This planet is most likely a completely natural, if unusual, phenomenon. Still, though, this at least slightly perks the interest in extraterrestrials. Maybe this is a complete conversion to trap all solar power falling on a planet?

  5. Re:All the evidence suggests is by gmueckl · · Score: 2

    That's a space station! Painted all black!

    --
    http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
  6. Re:All the evidence suggests is by Liinux · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's no moon.

    I find your lack of originality disturbing.

  7. Re:Circumventing? by hcpxvi · · Score: 2

    Surely they mean "orbiting"? "Circling" even? But "circumventing"?
    I was about to make the same point, but the OED gives several meaning for "circumvent", one of which is "To go round, make the circuit of." Still, it is not the way that most people use the word; I think we can conclude that TFA is not written by one of the web's better science journalists.

  8. Re:How dark? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is pitch black. Probably the home world of the grues.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  9. Re:All the evidence suggests is by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Funny

    I see a Death star

    And I want it painted black....

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  10. Kardashev by Dik+Zak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's also hot in infrared. Isn't this exactly what you would expect to see from a planet with a Kardashev level 1 civilisation?

  11. Re:How about #000000 by itsdapead · · Score: 2

    Here you go. This is the original negative image of course - they'll produce a reversed, colorized print to keep journalists happy but here on /. we understand that sort of thing.

    (Sorry guys, you're just going to have to imagine a big chunk of whitespace here because the Slashdot lameness filter has no fecking sense of humor)

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  12. Re:How about #000000 by itsdapead · · Score: 2

    Is it darker than #000000?

    Yep, its #FFFFFFFF!

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  13. Re:All the evidence suggests is by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Funny

    I see a Death star

    And I want it painted black....

    Palpatine: absolutely not!
    Anakin: That's SO not fair!!! You're NOT my father!!!

    (Or do rebellious teenage super villains demand to paint their bedroom magnolia?)

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  14. Re:How about #000000 by metacell · · Score: 2

    Technically speaking, the question is meaningless, since...

    1) The #xxxxxx system describes what colour an object displays under specific conditions (for example, lighting), not an object's innate light reflection ability (albedo).
    2) The #xxxxxx system doesn't describe colour on an absolute scale; it only orders colours in an arbitrary space with an arbitrary metric. For example, there's no guarantee that #000002 is twice as bright as #000001, and there's no guarantee that #000000 is absolute black. Even when a monitor is turned off, the screen is slightly brighter than absolute black, and when it's turned on with all pixels set to #000000, it's a little brighter still. That's why for example printers and researchers need to use better systems for measuring colours.

  15. 2001 by metalmonkey · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's from 2001 "All the monoliths are black, extremely flat, non-reflective rectangular solids."
    I remember Arthur C. Clarke's description of the blackness quite well, I'm thinking it was written slightly better than the summaries description of black.
    Unfortunately I don't have the book with me.

  16. Re:How about #000000 by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3

    Nope, they say it reflects "less than 1% of the light falling onto it". So it could be as light as #020202 (but not #030303).

    RGB hex values are gamma compressed—they represent perceived brightness and not actual light. #020202 actually represents about 0.06% the light of #FFF.

    The correct value representing "less than 1%" (assuming #FFF is falling on it) is #191919.

  17. Not discoverd by Kepler by arcctgx · · Score: 4, Informative

    TFA is wrong, the planet was discovered from a ground-based observatory back in 2006: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609335

  18. darkest? by Sperbels · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please someone correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression that we've never seen any of the light reflected by a planet outside of our solar system. I thought the only methods of planet detection we currently have were to see the light it blocks from its host star, or to see the pull it has on its host star.