Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Astronomers See the Glow of a Boiling Planet

Posted by Soulskill on from the anybody-have-a-starship-for-sale dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "For the first time, astronomers have detected the light from a 'super-Earth' exoplanet. The planet 55 Cancri e (with twice the radius and 8 times the mass of Earth) circles its host star every 18 hours, and is so hot it glows in the infrared. By observing in that wavelength, the astronomers measured the dip in light as the planet's glow was blocked by the star itself. This is the reverse of the usual method of detecting a planet as it blocks the light of its host star."

34 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. How cold do you think it needs to be ? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before it doesn't emit infrared radiation?

    1. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Before it doesn't emit infrared radiation?

      Good point, but I would assume that it's got to be giving off quite a bit to be detectable from here.

      Or maybe it's just very reflective.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They were looking at a wavelength of 4.5um - this probably isn't the peak wavelength the planet is emitting, but if it were, the source would need to be 370 C. Which I would call toasty.

    3. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      One could argue that 'infra-red' covers absolutely everything below red on the spectrum; but the accepted definition starts calling them 'microwaves' at some point. Cosmic background radiation mostly falls into that camp, below IR; but that is very chilly indeed...

    4. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not the peak - TFA states the planet's temperature is about 2700C. Which I would call "infernal".

      That does, however, explain how the IR emissions are high enough for us to detect here on Earth, light-years away - it's really, really, *really* hot.

    5. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by blackhat1234 · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article (yes I know it's not cool to RTFA) it's "so close to the star that the surface temperature is probably around 2700C — or 4900F!"

    6. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahhh.. Crematoria.

    7. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Before it doesn't emit infrared radiation?

      Absolute zero. All objects emit infrared. Better question: What's the sensitivity of the equipment measuring this?

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    8. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by dido · · Score: 4, Informative

      2700ÂC is not just infernal I'd think. That temperature is nearly half the temperature of the sun's photosphere (5500ÂC). Iron melts at 1538ÂC, and boils at 2862ÂC. There could be clouds of iron vapor and rains of molten iron there. If it had any kind of atmosphere it would likely be made up of iron and silicon vapor.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    9. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by jasno · · Score: 2

      Norfair?

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    10. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...it's really, really, *really* hot.

      Yea, but it's a dry heat...

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    11. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      ... it's "so close to the star that the surface temperature is probably around 2700C â" or 4900F! ...

      Is that the temperature for the WHOLE planet or the side which faces its sun ?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    12. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      with 2700 C the dominant frequencies aren't infrared anymore. More like yellow.

    13. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it had any kind of atmosphere it would likely be made up of iron and silicon vapor.

      Interesting ... it is said that silicon-based organic chemistry life is impossible because, unlike CO2, SiO2 is not a gas but a rock. Well, it seems now we have found a place where SiO2 actually is a gas...

    14. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Cosmic bacground radiation was emitted as infra red. It just has a massive redshift.
      Everything above 0K emits infra red.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    15. Re:How cold do you think it needs to be ? by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      If it had any kind of atmosphere it would likely be made up of iron and silicon vapor.

      Interesting ... it is said that silicon-based organic chemistry life is impossible because, unlike CO2, SiO2 is not a gas but a rock. Well, it seems now we have found a place where SiO2 actually is a gas...

      Sodium Oxide is too low temperature, but I think Li2O might have potential. Does anyone know the triple point of Lithium Oxide?

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
  2. Re:Now, now, now's the time right now! by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    To be honest, I actually I do find the posts somewhat entertaining. If this kid were writing a novel rather than trolling, I'd expect a pretty decent piece of literature to result. There's a nice blend of imagination, misdirection, and vocabulary that just appeals to me. I greatly prefer this to the post immediately below (as I write this) which includes "jason has a firm grip on shitstick".

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  3. super-Earth? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    What exactly justified it to be called super-Earth? The size is close to Earth (half order of magnitude), but it is close to Venus as well, and Venus is hotter.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:super-Earth? by Ironchew · · Score: 5, Informative

      The only planets larger than Earth in the Solar system are the gas giants, so a super Earth is just a designation for a planet more massive than Earth, but not a gas giant.

    2. Re:super-Earth? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

      What exactly justified it to be called super-Earth?

      Earth-like but significantly bigger than earth. The planet in question is 8 times the mass of Earth with twice the radius so roughly the same density. It might only be a factor of 8 in mass but if you saw a person with 8 times the average mass, say ~600kg, you'd certainly call them super-sized! As for temperature Venus is hotter than Earth but with a surface temperature of 460C it's decidedly nippy compared to the planet in question which is just over 1700C.

    3. Re:super-Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem here is one of nomenclature and trying to define different terms for planets. In our Solar System there are no "super-Earth" sized planets, so until exo-solar planets were discovered there was no need for any classification for planets that sized. Basically there is a need to define planets smaller than the "small gas giants" like Neptune and Uranus and something larger than the size of the Earth or Venus.

      Currently that is being called "Super Earth" because it shares many more characteristics with the Earth than it does with the gas giants.

      A similar scaling problem exists for planets that are a couple times the size of Jupiter, and larger, but aren't really large enough to ignite nuclear fusion. Sometimes those are called "brown dwarfs", but "super gas giants" is sometimes used too.... odd where a dwarf is more massive than a giant.

    4. Re:super-Earth? by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      Try this: super. As a prefix, it simple means more, over, above or beyond. We have 2 kinds of planets in the Solar System: rocky and gas giant. Earth is the largest of our rocky planets, you can think of it as the flagship. So this exo is an Earth-class planet, only 8 times heavier (that's closer to a full order of magnitude than half). A super-Earth. A , where the baseline is Earth. Get it?

      --
      Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
    5. Re:super-Earth? by voidphoenix · · Score: 2

      A dwarf human is still much larger than a giant ant. :)

      --
      Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
    6. Re:super-Earth? by saveferrousoxide · · Score: 1

      What exactly justified it to be called super-Earth?

      It's bigger, stronger, faster, shoots infra-red beams, and, the dead give-away, has a red cape. Yeah. I went there.

  4. Re:Now, now, now's the time right now! by tibit · · Score: 1

    Get off your lazy ass and have a current version for Mac, and an HTML version for at least both platforms, will you? Less trolling, more doing.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  5. Sauna world by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    I suggest we send Finnish astronauts. They actually like this sort of place.

    "Cosmonaut Hämeenniemi! Have you reached the planet, what is it like!"

    (long delay)

    "Shhh... I'm relaxing"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:Sauna world by Ollabelle · · Score: 1

      I think you mean to send Sam Magee

      --
      Ibid.
  6. ^_^ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    A watched planet never boils...

    1. Re:^_^ by rossdee · · Score: 1

      But it started boiling before we started watching it.
      So Boil's law is not broken.

  7. Re:God sucks at design by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    So you have created a universe with a better ratio of hospitable-to-inhospitable planets?
    No?
    Didn't think so.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  8. you should have two dips by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    One small dip is when the planet is covering the sun.A larger dip is when the sun is covering the planet.
      S+P vs S vs S +P - coveredfractionofsun*S.

    When the planet is colder the first dip is larger and the second dip is less. With a hot planet I think both dips may well be measurable.

    1. Re:you should have two dips by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      The dip when the planet is covering the sun shoud be bigger, assuming the sun is hotter than the planet.
      Sun before planet => intensity = intenisty of only the sun.
      Sun behind planet => intensity = intensity of the sun - intensity of blocked part of the sun + intensity of the planet
      sun and planet besides eachother => intensity = sun + planet

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  9. Re:God sucks at design by tbird81 · · Score: 2

    Leave the AC alone. At least he exists!

  10. Re:God sucks at design by flirno · · Score: 1

    We have no idea if they are really inhospitable to life. They are merely inhospitable to life as we know it. But, the bare fact is we don't know much, we have only a single working model to compare against which is hardly a scientific sample to draw any conclusions with.