Slashdot Mirror


First Exoplanet To Be Seen In Color Is Blue

ananyo writes "A navy-blue world orbiting a faraway star is the first exoplanet to have its colour measured. Discovered in 2005, HD 189733 b is one of the best-studied planets outside the Solar System, orbiting a star about 19 parsecs away in the Vulpecula, or Fox, constellation. Previous efforts to observe the planet focused on the infrared light it emits — invisible to the human eye. Astronomers have now used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe the planet and its host star. Hubble's optical resolution is not high enough to actually 'see' the planet as a dot of light separate from its star, so instead, the telescope receives light from both objects that mix into a single point source. To isolate the light contribution of the planet, the researchers waited for the planet to move behind the star during its orbit, so that its light would be blocked, and looked for changes in light colour. During the eclipse, the amount of observed blue light decreased, whereas other colours remained unaffected. This indicated that the light reflected by the planet's atmosphere, blocked by the star in the eclipse, is blue."

139 comments

  1. Suggested name of the planet by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's call this place "Eiffel 65".

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Suggested name of the planet by rwise2112 · · Score: 2

      Damn! The other planets are always bluer!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    2. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's in Vulpecula.
      I wonder if it's a good place for Androsynth.

    3. Re:Suggested name of the planet by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      Blue Marble II - The sequel!

    4. Re:Suggested name of the planet by aliquis · · Score: 1

      "Too much of heaven,
      Can bring you underground
      Heaven, can always turn around."

      "cause all that i want is a silicon girl.
      with silicon lips and silicon hair.
      sha la la, la la la you're my silicon girl
      so come into my silicon world."

      / Eiffel 65

    5. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Let's not.

    6. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen atmosphere? If our planet were any bluer it would be hard to breathe.

      BTW, that 19 parsecs is about 62 light years.

    7. Re:Suggested name of the planet by skovnymfe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a horrible and angry attitude toward the unknown. I'm glad I don't share your gene pool.

    8. Re:Suggested name of the planet by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well duh! Its a 90s song dude, having a shit video was all the rage, that way you could be "post ironic" about your hipness. Bad pop music, musicians that stared at their feet, oh and while the synths could be new the guitars needed to be from the 60s and 70s, the more shitty and offbeat the brand the better. I was playing with a lot of college bands in those days and while I always had my P-Bass (Can't go wrong with a Fender P-Bass, they never let you down) they were all playing Danelectro and Harmony, Silvertone and Kraftsman, as long as it was quirky looking they'd play those pieces of shit all night long....well for 2-3 song blocks then they'd have to retune those junkers..

      As for TFA....am I the only one that reads these things and gets depressed? I see the photo and RTFA and find out its 62 light years away and think "I will NEVER get to see this incredible wonder with my own eyes, never feel its ground under my feet" and just get all bummed out. All one has to do is look up where we are in the Milky Way to see that while being out on the ass end of a spiral may be a safer place to be its sure as hell a looooong way from where all the exciting stuff is and if we can't find a way around that pesky speed of light thing? We will never EVER leave our own back yard.

      I don't know about the rest of you but as somebody who grew up watching Star Trek and Battlestar I find that thought thoroughly depressing.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Suggested name of the planet by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Millennium Falcon could make it in 12 parsecs.

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    10. Re:Suggested name of the planet by bmk67 · · Score: 2

      This isn't the Kessel Run, you insensitive clod.

    11. Re:Suggested name of the planet by lightBearer · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're not alone, but in this case you'd not get to feel the ground beneath your feet due to it being a gas giant. Just sayin'.

      --
      - No Bounce, No Play -
    12. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      It's in Vulpecula.
      I wonder if it's a good place for Androsynth.

      Let's enslave some and find out. Actually, let's not and say we did. I'd rather they didn't unleash Orz into *heavy space*.

    13. Re:Suggested name of the planet by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      I would call it "Microsoft Windows". From this distance, you can only see a it's Blue Sky Of Death, but maybe some life (i.e. virus, worms and similar) could had evolved there.

    14. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next version of windows will be called 'Microsoft Smurf' with the ad-line " It's the Smurfiest! :) "

    15. Re:Suggested name of the planet by danlip · · Score: 1

      Nitrogen makes the sky look blue to an observer standing on the ground, but that is a scattering effect, and I doubt it has much affect on the color of a planet as observed from space, which is mostly about the light reflected from the surface (or clouds).

    16. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you are in your thirties there is every chance you will be around for another 60 years. Be positive. Plenty of time to get working on that warp drive after you have spent your 10,000 hours becoming a crack physicist. After all, someone has to invent one eventually.

      Once you have the warp drive all you need to do is work on those very large floaty shoes you will need when you get there.

    17. Re: Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When asked to describe their findings, the researchers responded, "it's blue, da-ba-dee da-ba-die da-ba-dee da-ba-die"

    18. Re:Suggested name of the planet by garyebickford · · Score: 2

      Well, some friends and I (shameless plug - Space Finance Group) are working on a consolation prize for you - we're working to help commercial space development along. It's early days yet, but I'm looking forward to more 'New Space' companies becoming profitable, and growing, and pretty soon maybe actually making money without depending on government contracts. And I think that's coming, sooner than it may seem just now. So it's possible you may be able to see the Earth from above in your new orbital hotel 'room', in your lifetime. Put it on your bucket list.

      See also the conference: New Space 2013, July 25-27 in San Jose.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    19. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The blue comes from Rayleigh scattering, which mainly has to do with the molecules in air being smaller than the wavelength of light. Unless you picked a gas that had specific absorption in visible light, it would have the same color on such scales. The only difference is if you picked a molecule that was bigger or smaller you would get stronger or weaker scattering, affecting how much gas you have to look through to get the same amount of blue.

    20. Re:Suggested name of the planet by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      I see the photo and RTFA and find out its 62 light years away and think "I will NEVER get to see this incredible wonder with my own eyes, never feel its ground under my feet

      But you didn't RTFA, which says it's a gas giant, so it has no ground that could be felt under your feet.

      If you feel so strongly about lack of faster-than-light travel, stop whining and go study advanced physics, so you can acquire a remote chance of being able to do something about the problem.

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    21. Re:Suggested name of the planet by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Probably methane absorbing red light much like Neptune which looks very blue

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    22. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a place you want to be. The atmosphere would crush your vessel like a beer can.

    23. Re:Suggested name of the planet by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I think Uranus is blue because of methane in its atmosphere.

    24. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Maybe will won't ever leave our back yard, but I'm encouraged at the moment by the revelation that some of the stars that you can see with a decent telescope are located outside our own galaxy. Stars in the SMC, for example, can be easily detected (I think 'resolved' is the wrong term here, since we can't determine their shape). Strafing around the Milky Way and SMC in Celestia gives some idea of the scale we're talking here.

      For some reason I find the idea of imaging stars in another galaxy, if only a dwarf galaxy, much cooler than detecting exoplanets, which I still rate very highly.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    25. Re:Suggested name of the planet by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      According to the bad astronomer, most likely due to silicates in the atmosphere. The silicates also rain down. Yes. Rain made out of rocks. Take that, hail!

    26. Re:Suggested name of the planet by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      According to the bad astronomer, it is probably due to silicates.

    27. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately for you, you do.

      Unfortunately for me, we all do.

      Fortunately for both of us he is in a distant corner, in the middle of a spreading yellow stain.

    28. Re:Suggested name of the planet by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot

      Rayleigh scattering probably doesn't have anything to do with the Earth appearing blue at a distance, no, but the Earth still does appear blue to an outside observer. It may have something to do with the planet mostly being covered in water..

    29. Re:Suggested name of the planet by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Clippy Smurf.

      It would be one of the signs of the Apocalypse.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    30. Re:Suggested name of the planet by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      You must be a Linux Tech Support Person.

      "Stop your whining, learn how to program and write your own driver n00b. That's why the call it open source" ...in response to "How can I get my linksys wireless card to work on my dell 630 laptop".

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    31. Re:Suggested name of the planet by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Yea, I should have read TFA, seems it's a very hot Jupitor type

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Question: what atmospheric constituents? by under_score · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm curious: what are the likely elements and molecules that would cause the blue reflection?

    1. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by show+me+altoids · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Many and varied. After all, in our own solar system, Earth, Uranus, and Neptune are all shades of blue.

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    2. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liquid water teeming with life! Or lifeless methane.

    3. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Funny

      Many and varied. After all, in our own solar system, Earth, Uranus, and Neptune are all shades of blue.

      If Uranus is blue, you should really go see a proctologist.

      Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week! Tip your wait staff!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The suggested explanation is really cool and exotic: it's "rain" of molten glass (silicate particles) in the extremely hot and turbulent atmosphere.

    5. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I'm sorry Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all." "Oh. What's it called now?" "Urectum."

    6. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by under_score · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is cool! I'm sure that in the distant future when we get to actually explore these places (probes or human explorers), that we will find all sorts of nifty things... and probably discover all sorts of ways in which we are wrong :-) I wish I could see that future!

    7. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a very primitive biosphere; dominated by methane, molecular hydrogen and congressmen.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait for it, you'll see it.

    9. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      You sir, are refreshingly optimistic. I hope you're right. ;)

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    10. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 2

      *Rim shot* See what I did there?

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    11. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      We're going to need a massive advancement in umbrella technology first.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    12. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      See what I did there?

      I do, and I approve.

      Well played, sir/madam, well played.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      what are the likely elements and molecules that would cause the blue reflection?

      Methane, for one.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    14. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm curious: what are the likely elements and molecules that would cause the blue reflection?

      Blue is very common. It's caused by Rayleigh scattering. Just about anything can cause a blue reflection if the structure is right. In this case it's small particles of "glass". The glass itself is not blue.

    15. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      It's a very primitive biosphere; dominated by methane, molecular hydrogen and congressmen.

      So you are saying blue congressmen are volatile gas giants?

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    16. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a gas giant that is absorbing blue when it passes in front of the star.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    17. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by TeknoHog · · Score: 0

      What if I have blue balls?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    18. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well played, sir/madam, well played.

      Pointless qualification. There are no women on the Internet.

    19. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Well, duh!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    20. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's easy to tune out - keep in mind that space is mind-numbingly big. Even in a tight mercury-like orbit we're talking about a grain of sand orbiting an orange at a distance of several miles (Probably actually need a couple extra zeros in there..). There's a *very* small window when a planet will be either in front of or behind its star, 99.9...% of the time it will be off to one side or the other (and that's assuming it ever does - assuming a random distribution of orbital planes most will never even get close)

      Also, the starlight will drop far more radically (for sufficiently miniscule definitions of radical) when the planet passes in front of the sun - most planets will be *far* better at casting shadows than reflecting light (our big shiny moon for example is actually coal black and only reflects a few percent of the sunlight that hits it, whereas it blocks 100% from passing through.

      And actually you can do two different tests at different points in the planets orbit:
      What is the planet's color as observed from space? = spectra of (planet+star) - spectra of star when planet is behind it, which they did here
      What is the planet's atmospheric absorption spectra? = spectra of star - spectra of star when planet is in front of it so some starlight passes through the atmosphere on the way here (+ math), which is what they did in ultra-intense mode with the recent Venus transit of the sun for calibration purposes.
      I imagine the combination can be quite informative, provided the planet's year is short enough that your initial measurements haven't been lost to ancient history before you get the second set...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      What if I have blue balls?

      In that case, Scuzzlebutt's *Rim shot* may help.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    22. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the British could help out there!

    23. Re:Question: what atmospheric constituents? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Pointless qualification. There are no women on the Internet.

      We must be using different internets.

      The one we have here is full of women. Most of them asking for money, probably to buy some clothes.

  3. Not Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neptune is blue too....

    1. Re:Not Water by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah, but Neptune is named for a water god, which totally refutes your point and isn't a non-sequitur at all.

    2. Re:Not Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh crap, they found planet Microsoft, if it's blue it needs a reboot, perhaps a meteoroid will slam into it soon (the power button effect) then it will be good for a few more days.

    3. Re:Not Water by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      It's also known as an "ice giant".

  4. Vulpecula, you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably explains something about Vulpix.

    1. Re:Vulpecula, you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the area the Androsynth mysteriously disappeared from? Watch out! The Orz will come after us next if we are noticed.

  5. Vulpecula by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 1

    Did they find the Androsynth living there?

    1. Re:Vulpecula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, but Orz is happy to *spit* hello.

    2. Re:Vulpecula by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though it is *no function*

  6. blue shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or it indicates the planet is hurtling toward us and will strike the earth in less than 40 years.
    We need to start building arks NOW.
    We need to start building arks regardless.

  7. Blue = hydrocarbons or hydroxys by Khyber · · Score: 1

    So this planet might have a breathable atmosphere. But odds are it's more methane-based.

    Still, pretty nice we can observe a planet's color.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Blue = hydrocarbons or hydroxys by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      guess again, and RTFA

      unless you're a Horta, then I could totally see that comment making sense

    2. Re:Blue = hydrocarbons or hydroxys by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I RTFA and the chemical background is lacking.

      Whereas my chemical BG is overwhelming for their shit high-school educated selves.

      Try again when you have the capability to wipe out the USA's AG Economy, eh?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:Blue = hydrocarbons or hydroxys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue = hydrocarbons or hydroxys

      Blue can mean a lot of things, since it is the default color for a gas due to Rayleigh scattering as long as it doesn't have any other particular absorption. Or in this case it could be caused by Mie scattering off of silicate particles. And article's references address this even in the free abstract, with now several studies and models pointing to the latter. But don't let that stop your ego and "overwhelming" chemistry background.

  8. Re:Bullshit by Major+Ralph · · Score: 1

    What? No one ever said this planet might host life. According to TFA it's a gas giant.. And last I heard gas giants don't host life.

    --
    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
  9. Did they account for Doppler? by HighOrbit · · Score: 0
    FTA

    To isolate the light contribution of the planet, Evans and his colleagues waited for the planet to move behind the star during its orbit, so that its light would be blocked, and looked for changes in light colour.

    A spectrograph on board the Hubble monitored light coming from the source, in wavelengths ranging from yellow to ultraviolet. During the eclipse, the amount of observed blue light decreased, whereas other colours remained unaffected. This indicated that the light reflected by the planet's atmosphere, blocked by the star in the eclipse, is blue.

    So, they are observing the change in light when the planet moves farther away (behind its star) and seeing less blue, thereby conjecturing the planet is blue. But wouldn't the planet's light also redshift as it moves away and blueshift as it moves toward us? How much of the color change is accounted for by doppler?

    1. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Measure light as it passes by either sides of its star.

    2. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that the planet orbits its star at such a high speed as to produce an observable doppler shift?

    3. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epic physics fail. It is effectively the same as the redshift versus blueshift of a car speeding past you. How's that for an appropriate car analogy!

    4. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doppler shift would be observable from that star. The speed of the orbit isn't the issue. The speed of that planet relative to our planet is where the doppler would come into effect.

    5. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

      I don't know. You tell me. I don't know what the orbital period for this planet is or the distance it orbits at. Orbital speeds are pretty fast though. Google tells me that the earth moves about 107,000 km/hr around the sun. If their instruments are sensitive enough, they might see the difference. I would also guess there is a possible gravitational redshift and lensing depending on the mass of the star and the orbital distance.

    6. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by wootcat · · Score: 1

      No, I did not RTFA, but the first thought I had was; if the planet is between us and its star, we'd be "seeing" the side of the planet facing away from the star. Wouldn't it be dark? It's not like it's a binary system with another star lighting the opposite side. Since it's a gas giant, I guess there would be enough light filtering through the upper atmosphere edges to cast off some light, but overall, it seems like such a small area to glean colors from.

      --
      I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
    7. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by gmclapp · · Score: 2

      The redshift used to measure the speed of objects moving away from us applies primarily to the galaxy as a whole. If you were to normalize the light received to compensate for the redshift of the galaxy as a whole, the additional velocity of the planet, being negligibly small with respect to your new frame of reference would not significantly 'redden' your results. Good question though.

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    8. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Probably not. from the parent stars perspective the doppler discoloration is based on motion along the axis between the star and the planet. It would get much LESS doppler effect as the planets motion will be extremely low along that axis, or no motion if the planets orbit is highly circular.

    9. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Not really. If the planet is passing directly behind the star, its vector of motion is perpendicular to the direction of observation and would produce no doppler effect. The doppler affect only matters for motion towards or away from the observer.

    10. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      when a planet begins to transition behind its star, we would be seeing the bright sunward side of the planet, so the measure is still useful. We would only be seeing the full dark side of the planet when it passed in front of the parent star.

    11. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Yes, the colors are measured from that area.

    12. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clearing that up.

    13. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Certainly. We've already managed to locate a few planets based on the miniscule doppler shift of the star as it orbits its system's barycenter (our barycenter for reference varies between about 1/2 and 3 solar radii from the sun's center). In comparison the doppler shift of the planet would be massive (on an admittedly much weaker signal)

      However, it still wouldn't be an issue assuming you made your planet observation(s) immediately before/after it went behind its star - at that point its orbital velocity would be at right angles to our line-of-sight, so no doppler shift. Plus those are the points where the planet would be the fullest, so it's the natural time to take your measurements.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be an issue assuming you made your planet observation(s) immediately before/after it went behind its star - at that point its orbital velocity would be at right angles to our line-of-sight, so no doppler shift. Plus those are the points where the planet would be the fullest, so it's the natural time to take your measurements.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that doppler doesn't work for measuring vehicle speeds, with a lower (by many orders of magnitude) velocity relative to the observer? See: RADAR gun

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    16. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For speeds not particular fast compared to the speed of light (e.g. less than 25% of c), the Doppler shift is pretty much proportional to the ratio of the speed to c. In this case, at maximum orbital speed of ~150 km/s for the planet, that gives a Doppler shift of about 0.05%. With enough light, that is easily detectable (the shift on the star that lead to the planet's discovery was only ~ 200 m/s).

      But that is ultimately irrelevant here. The spectra of the planet is not just some other spectrum that has been shifted by ~ 0.25 nm, but a spectrum where there is heavy absorptions from ~500-1000 nm and longer. This is like asking if we are misreading the Hollywood sign because someone may have moved one of the letters by an inch. Especially considering that the Doppler shift when the planet passes behind the star will be minimal, as most of its velocity will be perpendicular to our view.

      Gravitational redshifting, from the surface of the star would be a factor 200 smaller than any Doppler shifting from the planet's movement (or 2000 times smaller if looking at light from the planet). Gravitational lensing is independent of wavelength.

    17. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, measuring small proportional changes in frequency is much easier in the radio region than in the visible region. Second, the change in color attributed to the planet involves absorption across half the visible spectrum, some thing easily that would be easily observable by the naked eye if bright enough. The color change by Doppler shift for the speeds involved would not be observable by the naked eye no matter how bright, and would be difficult with instrumentation without reasonably good spectroscopy equipment and a decent light level.

    18. Re:Did they account for Doppler? by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      Astronomy 101. Hell, even firemen know this.

  10. Re:Bullshit by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    At the least, I'm sure there's no life on Uranus.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  11. Re:Bullshit by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    you might have read the article about this being a gas giant with 1,000+ degree C atmosphere, with sideways 7,000 KPM wind containing glass particles that make the blue color. but instead you had to reflexively yank your own leash and bark a bunch of nonsense. Maybe the reason governments haven't come out with information about extraterrestrials is that you imagine it from non-existent evidence?

  12. I, for one, will be happy when Hubble is dead by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, look at all this time and effort we're wasting on "science" and "discovery."

    We need to get back to 16th century thinking and government funded services so my taxes can go down another $10 a paycheck. I mean, those cigarettes and premium cable TV channels aren't going to pay for themselves!

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:I, for one, will be happy when Hubble is dead by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

      We need to get back to 16th century thinking and government funded services so my taxes can go down another $10 a paycheck.

      I just now calculated it, and you're right, it is about $10 per paycheck for a typical software developer income.

      It used to be that kings and noblemen would fund science. Now they fund vaccines for the poor. It used to be people funded the poor via the "poor box" at church. Now people fund science (whether they like it or not).

      The net result is, for the common person, taking religion and self-giving out of helping the poor.

    2. Re:I, for one, will be happy when Hubble is dead by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      First, false dilemma.

      Second, taxing people that have disposable income is a lot more effective then trying to tax people that don't.

      Third, get a grip. We're discussing extra-solar planets. Not every story is another opportunity for you to exhibit your training as a malcontent.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:I, for one, will be happy when Hubble is dead by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      That sound you just heard was not HD 189733 flying past you.

    4. Re:I, for one, will be happy when Hubble is dead by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Fourth, WHOOSH.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  13. Glass, people. Glass. by vikingpower · · Score: 2

    The planet has a surface temperature of about 1000 degrees Celsius. It is scourged by 7000 km/h winds. Pieces of silica, or if you prefer: glass, are flying around at supersonic speeds. And yes, it is the silica and the glass that give the planet its blue color. We should not call it Eiffel65. We should call it Philip.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Glass, people. Glass. by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      New Vegas?

    2. Re:Glass, people. Glass. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Bottles of Skyy Vodka!

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  14. IANAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am not an astronomer; any chance that the coloration could be affected by something in between? For example these so called "wrinkles" that Voyager is experiencing as it exits the solar system? Just curious.

    1. Re:IANAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The chance is pretty low to non-existant, i guess. Those guys measured the star's spectrum, once while the planet was covered and once while it was next to the star. Then they calculated the difference and that is the color of the planet. The spectrum of the star can be expected to almost match an ideal black-body radiator. Using the known absorption lines, any manipulation to the spectrum (by doppler effect, absorption by gas clouds, ...) can be determined very precisely, and substracted before calculating the planet's color.

    2. Re:IANAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we know the orbit of the planet reasonably well now, anything moving in front would have to do in sync, which would be unlikely. Additionally, this is the third time the color has been measured, using a second, different method. To have something interfere exactly all the times and affect both methods most likely rules out anything like that, not to mention we would see such an effect elsewhere on stars that don't have planets.

  15. Re:Bullshit by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    The last I had heard, we were nowhere near determining whether that was so. It seems improbable that a gas giant would, but until we actually have a reasonably decent sample size of gas giants under close observation, I'd say it's awfully premature to jump to conclusions.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  16. Units! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Since parsec is an antiquated unit, this planet is about 62 light years away. (or, more usefully: 2.914 quadrillion furlongs)

    Wow. I actually got to be pedantic about units and none of the units involved were metric!

    1. Re:Units! by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      Since parsec is an antiquated unit

      Since when? The parsec is a very handy unit when you're measuring distance to stars from Earth using the parallax method.

    2. Re:Units! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      One parsec means a parallax of 1 arc second, so presumably 19 parsecs means a parallax of 19 arc seconds? No? OTOH, to me, last year was a heavy year, so in comparison, this year feels like a light year.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Units! by PPH · · Score: 1

      And do you expect us to throw out the barn-megaparsec?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Units! by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      While neither parsec or light year are accepted for use with the SI system, the distance in parsecs can be experimentally determined up to around 1.000-2.000 parsecs, so its use can be accepted (though I assume this indicates that the distance is determined by parallax, or is extrapolated from a distance measured with parallax). Light years have no such redeeming features, and is only used because people are to lazy to use proper units, which in this case would make the distance 5.9*10^2 petameters, or 0.59 exameters.

  17. You need to hire a better pilot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    19 Parsecs away, you say? Han could make it in less than 12.

  18. 19 parsecs? by plover · · Score: 2

    In other words, it's about 1.6 Kessel Runs? But how fast is that?

    --
    John
    1. Re:19 parsecs? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      That depends on how many years your falcon has. Decade Falcons take goddamn forever.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:19 parsecs? by Livius · · Score: 1

      I could only afford a Century Falcon, and it's a nuisance when I the conversion factor wrong.

  19. Pics or it didn't happen by steamraven · · Score: 1

    Where are the pictures? (even if one pixel wide)

    1. Re:Pics or it didn't happen by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Where are the pictures? (even if one pixel wide)

      Here.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Pics or it didn't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't look so blue to me.

  20. I'm lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't see the planet, but they know when it's behind it's sun. It's 61 light years away. Umm, like is there water on the moon, or not?

  21. TLDR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TLDR: They found out that the planet is blue, by using MS paint colour picker on their instagram picture of the planet.

  22. That''s not an eclipse by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Several times in TFS, it says that the planet is "eclipsed" by the star. This, of course, is nonsense: the correct term is "occluded," and the event is called an occultation.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:That''s not an eclipse by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      How is it nonsense? Occulation is a type of eclipse, so all occultations are also eclipses..

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  23. Doesn't mean that at all. by macraig · · Score: 2

    The planet isn't blue. The blue light that got blocked out by the host star was actually the trillions of blue LEDs that the natives use to light their cities, just because they happen to really fancy blue.

    1. Re:Doesn't mean that at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be daft; if it the planet was obscured by its sun, it would have it's daytime side facing us :-p

    2. Re:Doesn't mean that at all. by Livius · · Score: 1

      " blue LEDs that the natives use to light their cities"

      So, not coloured blue, just giving off blue light?

    3. Re:Doesn't mean that at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is that a difference?

    4. Re:Doesn't mean that at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blue LEDs suck. They are harsh, especially in low light. WTF is wrong with red?

  24. Re:Bullshit by TopSpin · · Score: 2

    It seems improbable that a gas giant would

    Does it seem improbable to you? Life on Earth evolved in a fluid.

    Even if genesis is not possible in a gas giant atmosphere, large planets tend to have lots of moons and, therefore, lots of opportunities for primitive life to emerge. Extremophiles from such a moon could survive a short trip through space to a gas giant's atmosphere. Some small fraction of those would thrive and evolve in the new environment.

    I suspect gas giant atmospheres may actually be very fertile. Life is good at producing simple sphere shapes needed for buoyancy. There are probably gas giants with billions of tons of biomass drifting around.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  25. Re:Bullshit by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    I don't know. I've heard Uranus is crawling with worms.

  26. It's the colour of a blow-torch flame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's how welcoming the atmosphere is.
    CAPTCHA: ignite

  27. Latin by alva_edison · · Score: 1

    Vulpecula - Little Vixen, it differs slightly in connotation from the article's translation of Fox.

    --
    He effected a bored affect.
    1. Re:Latin by danlip · · Score: 1

      Vixen just means female fox, and the connotations you are thinking of post-date Latin by at least a millennium.

  28. Don't you enjoy *parties*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are not a *happy camper*.

  29. 19 parsecs away by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

    orbiting a star about 19 parsecs away

    Where is the helpful posts converting this to a more useful measurement, like "libraries of congress" or "golf balls"?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  30. PARSECS? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    Fuck that shit! It's light years around here buddy!

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  31. Re:Bullshit by Immerman · · Score: 1

    > Life on Earth evolved in a fluid.
    Actually, last I hear the going theory was that life probably evolved on submerged surfaces. Technically in a fluid, but able to borrow structure from the solid substrate, facilitating the development of more complex structures which eventually evolved self-stabilization and the ability to become free-floating. Seething chaos is great for simple chemistry, but nano-mechanical machines like early versions of RNA and enzymes likely benefited from a buffer.

    The rest are good points though, and I'll add that we have only the vaguest idea as to what might be going on in the hearts of gas giants - could be the hot diamond beds of Jupiter's hydrogen seas are actually wonderfully nurturing environments for proto-life, not that I'd put money on it.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  32. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And last I heard gas giants don't host life.

    Probably Dwellers and/or Affront, dumbass.

  33. Don'tcha miss the days when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...planets were planets and there was no "exo" about it?