Amateur Planet Hunters Find First Planet In a Four-Star System

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amateur Planet Hunters Find First Planet In a Four-Star System

Posted by samzenpus on Monday October 15, 2012 @05:08AM from the four-suns-are-better-than-one dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "For the first time, a planet has been found in a stellar system composed of four stars. The planet, called PH-1, orbits a binary star made of two sun-like stars in a tight orbit. That binary is itself orbited by another binary pair much farther out. Even more amazing, this planet was found by two "citizen scientists", amateurs who participated in Planet Hunters, a project which puts Kepler Observatory data online for lay people to analyze. At least two confirmed planets have been found by this project, but this is the first — ever — in a quaternary system."

17 of 52 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:Clearly this is Binar 0 by SJHillman · 2012-10-15 05:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Or possibly the system that Firefly takes place in. That also had four stars.
Next thing you know... by GODISNOWHERE · 2012-10-15 05:20 · Score: 4, Funny

Gillette sponsors a team of astronomers to find a planetary system of five stars. http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/ [Link contains strong language that may be considered NSFW]
Re:Clearly this is Binar 0 by roc97007 · 2012-10-15 05:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Or Asimov's Nightfall? (The story, not the movie.)

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
A 4 star solar system sounds nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 05:23 · Score: 2, Funny

But I was really planning on retiring on a 5 star solar system. The help really care about you in those places.
Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 05:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Picard : There...are...FOUR...lights!
Re:Hey everybody! It's Phil Plait! by foniksonik · 2012-10-15 05:31 · Score: 3, Informative

You could save the rest of us by linking to said original source.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Pretty surprising by Grayhand · 2012-10-15 05:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

If planets can form with the gravitational forces of a dual binary system I have to believe virtually all suns have planets of some form. Stars tend to have left over material when they form and that tends to form planets. The more conditions they find that can support planets the more system candidates there are for planets.
1. Re:Pretty surprising by gstoddart · 2012-10-15 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And it serves to consistently push up the values of some of the terms in Drake's equation.
  Back in the early 90's when I hung out with astronomers, the idea of finding exoplanets was still pretty new, and now it seems pretty commonplace.
  To me, even if it's not intelligent life we'll ever make contact with, the likelihood that life has evolved on other planets seems like it would pretty much be a near certainty -- to me it has always seemed improbable that only our planet in the arse end of a galaxy would have done so.
  Granted, the universe is a fairly hostile place that has lots of ways to wipe out a budding intelligent species. But the notion that we're singularly unique in terms of evolving life in all of that vastness seems improbable.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:Pretty surprising by MozeeToby · 2012-10-15 07:01 · Score: 2
  
  A thought experiment: I propose a modified form of the Drake equation that, for lack of a better name, I will call MozeeToby's Equation:
  First, add a term for the probability that a civilization will send out self replicating probes before it dies off. I refuse to believe this number is significantly low (that is, I refuse to believe that 1% of alien civilizations won't be curious enough to do so or die off before they are able). We are just nearing the technological ability to start this effort ourselves and I don't see any reason that the technology should be especially outlandish or unlikely for other civilizations to develop. I'm not saying I'll see the first probes launched in my lifetime, but I have difficulty believing that we won't have the ability in the next thousand years.
  Second, get rid of the civilization lifespan variable from Drake's equation. All that matters is that they get the first batch of probes out the door before they die off. After that, the probes will be too numerous and too scattered to realistically be stopped by any natural phenomenon.
  Third, add a variable for the probability that these probes make contact when they find an intelligent civilization. I'm prepared to concede that this number could be low, perhaps even in the range of fractions of a percent, but it only takes a single civilization choosing to make contact to blow the whole 'zoo hypothesis' out of the water. Space is simply too large to prevent a single player from making contact against the wishes of everyone else.
  Unlike the Drake equation, we know the result of MozeeToby's equation; it's zero. There have been no probes sighted or heard or landing on the White house lawn. If you grant that the two new terms are not infinitesimally small, which I would argue could not be the case based on what we know of evolution and what drives the development of intelligence, one of the other terms, original to the Drake equation must be the problem.
  Well, either that or there is a disaster waiting for us somewhere between now and when we develop the technology to build a self replicating probe. Nanotech catastrophe? Antimatter warfare? Something we can't even imagine yet? I have difficulty thinking of serious threats between our current tech level and the levels required.
3. Re:Pretty surprising by gstoddart · 2012-10-15 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  I'm going to assume you're mostly joking or trying to prove something by absurdity, but I have no idea of what it is.
  All I'm saying is given the rate at which we find out more about how complex and varied the universe is ... I find it hard to believe that there isn't some Bladarian Moon Slug out there somewhere or at least some form of multi-cellular life. It doesn't need to be intelligent. It doesn't even need to be close. We don't even need to ever encounter it.
  But the initial assumptions were that there would only be a small number of planets in the universe is proving to be quite false. Drastically so. In fact, compared to what was believed in the 90's, I'd say orders of magnitude so.
  You seem to be doing some form of reductio ad absurdum, but in reverse by injecting arbitrary complexity.
  I'm not trying to say anything more than "somewhere out there, at least some form of pond scum must have evolved because the closer that we look, the more there are gazillions of planets in hugely varied conditions".
  I'm not entirely sure of what you're trying to say.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
4. Re:Pretty surprising by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-10-15 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  Drake's equation involves terms like "civilization" and "intelligent". "Some form of pond scum" is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
  IMO, the notion that more exoplanets means more certainty that intelligent life exists somewhere is specious. The total lack of evidence found amidst this abundance of opportunity suggests to me that the evolution of life of any kind is, in fact, exceedingly rare (perhaps a single event).
  This is what MozeeToby's equation seems to be getting at.
Six stars by doti · 2012-10-15 05:34 · Score: 3

and we'd get Nightfall

--
factor 966971: 966971
1. Re:Six stars by Neil+Boekend · 2012-10-15 19:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Easy, the planet could have a slow rotation. The planet orbits two stars (who orbit each other extremely closely). At an orbit further out two other stars orbit the entire system of 2 stars and a planet. The large orbit of the "outer stars" means everything can be in such a configuration:
  0 = star . = planet _ = space because nbsp's don't work
  
  00 _ _ _ _ 00 .
  
  This would give a night. Half a year later (from the planets POV)
  
  00 _ _ _ . 00
  and they have no night.
  
  My question is: how can such a system be stable? The planet would have vastly different gravitational forces when it's between the starts as opposed to when it's not between the stars. I suppose the outer stars could be in an extremely big orbit (twice the size of Pluto's) so the effect would be slow, but I expect a great risk of orbital instability and thus crashing into the star or being flung out of orbit into the vastness of space. Neither are fun.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:How about a picture? by egamma · 2012-10-15 06:27 · Score: 2

I skimmed through the whole paper, and didn't see one overview diagram to show the shape of this thing's orbit. Haven't really gotten a grip even on how 4 stars orbit around each other - is it two binary systems circling a common centre? Then where do you put a planet in... orbiting in a wide circle around the outside of the stars, figure-8ing between two pairs of stars, some elaborate knot weaving in and out around all 4?
If anyone has a better handle on this than I do, a clear description would serve just as well as a diagram.
RTFS:

That binary is itself orbited by another binary pair much farther out.

Granted, it doesn't talk about the planet. But my guess is that the planet is orbiting the central pair, like the outer pair.

--
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
Re:What a view! by avgjoe62 · 2012-10-15 07:58 · Score: 2

Yea, but figuring out the changes needed for Daylight Savings Time adjustments on NT server is pure hell...

--
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Re:How about a picture? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 08:30 · Score: 2, Informative

The two central stars have an orbit of 20 days. The planet has an orbit of 137 days, meaning it is 3.5 times from the center of the central stars as they are from each other. Additionally, one of the center stars is about a quarter of the mass of the other, so the center of mass is closer to one than the other. Then the second pair of binaries is at a distance of about 1000 AU from the central stars. The planet's orbit looks like about 0.4 AU (from my calculation, the other distance, times and masses are from the original paper).
So this wouldn't look that different from the solar system, as in there are no crazy figure 8 orbits. Two stars are close together in the center, the planet goes around in a circle around the outside of that. That system and the other binary star system then orbit around each other with a separation much larger than the size of each individual part.
Re:How about a picture? by Captain+Nitpick · 2012-10-15 08:42 · Score: 2

is it two binary systems circling a common centre?
Yes.

Then where do you put a planet in... orbiting in a wide circle around the outside of the stars, figure-8ing between two pairs of stars, some elaborate knot weaving in and out around all 4?
There's a diagram of the inner binary system in the paper. It's near the end.
Two stars orbit each other at a distance of about 0.17 AU. The planet is in a circular orbit around both of them at a distance of 0.64 AU.
The other binary pair is about 1000 AU distant from the first pair. It's irrelevant to the planet's orbit.

--
But then again, I could be wrong.