Slashdot Mirror
Frigid Brown Dwarf Found Only 7.2 Light-Years Away
An anonymous reader writes "Astronomer Kevin Luhman just found the 7th closest star to the sun. It's a mere 7.2 light-years away, discovered using NASA's Spitzer and WISE telescopes. How could it exist so close for so long without us knowing? It's a brown dwarf — barely a star at all. 'Brown dwarfs are star-like objects that are more massive than planets, but not quite massive enough to ignite sustained fusion in their cores. Hydrogen fusion is what powers the Sun, and makes it hot; it's the mighty pressure of the Sun's core that makes that happen. Brown dwarfs don't have the oomph needed to keep that going.' This small almost-star is downright chilly at around 225-260 Kelvin. That's -48 to -13 C (or -54 to 9 F). As Phil Plait points out, that's not much different from the temperature in the freezer in your kitchen. He adds, 'It implies this object is very old, too, because it would've been a few thousands degrees when it formed, and would take at least a billion years to cool down to its current chilly temperature. It's hard to determine how old it actually is, but it's most likely 1-10 billion years old. It has a very low mass, too, probably between 3 and 10 times the mass of Jupiter. That's pretty lightweight even for a brown dwarf. And here's another amazing thing about it: It might be a planet. What I mean is, it may have formed around a star like a planet does, then got ejected by gravitational interactions with other planets.'"
No, it might have been a planet once, but its not orbiting a star now so its not a planet.
You try spotting something that cold and not much bigger than jupiter 7 light years away! I'm incredibly impressed they've managed to spot it at all and should be congratulated since it'll barely even register in the infrared never mind visible light.
I keep hearing about "Dark Matter" as an explanation for how galaxies don't fly apart due to the force generated by their rotation, but I can't help thinking that all that mass we're looking for in galaxies could be stuff like this. Regular matter that just doesn't generate enough heat or light for us to have noticed prior to this.
Could the question of how galaxies rotate be answered by large quantities of objects such as these?
"...most likely 1-10 billion years old."
That doesn't narrow it down much, given everything in the universe is in the 0-13.8 billion year range.
Sorry for the double-post, didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I posted this previously
I keep hearing about "Dark Matter" as an explanation for how galaxies don't fly apart due to the force generated by their rotation, but I can't help thinking that all that mass we're looking for in galaxies could be stuff like this. Regular matter that just doesn't generate enough heat or light for us to have noticed prior to this.
Could the question of how galaxies rotate be answered by large quantities of objects such as these?
Google that without SafeSearch. ewwww.
From an authoritative and current source
It follows that the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water is exactly 273.16 kelvins, Ttpw = 273.16
If the BIPM can't be bothered,I don't see why the rest of us should follow your prescription.
Ah, you met her too?
And since
And to head off your objection.
Readers should note that the official record is always that of the French text.
The french standard says
Il en résulte que la température thermodynamique du point triple de l’eau est égale à 273,16 kelvins exactement, Ttpw = 273,16 K.
french original
The first obligation of a pedant is to be technically correct.
Sure, right after we finish mining Jupiter and develop FTL drives to get there.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Kudos for writing 225-260 Kelvin and not 'degree Kelvin' or 'Kelvins' in the summary. Slate f'ed up though. They wrote 'Kelvins'.
Umm, sorry, but you're wrong. As an SI unit, a "kelvin" (yes, with a lowercase k) is pluralized using the same grammatical rules as others (e.g., volts, ohms, etc.). Its abbreviation is an uppercase K.
So, "225-260 kelvins" or "225-260 K" is correct, according to official SI standard.
If you want to be pedantic, be sure you have a clue concerning what you're talking about.
(And regardless, I think this is a rather stupid thing to get too pedantic about. The previous standard, before 1968, referred to it as "degrees Kelvin" just like all the other temperature standards. I understand that the SI conventions are trying to maintain consistency across all units, but it's weird when that also results in breaking consistency with all other units that deal with the same type of measurement. I'm not saying it's wrong, and official scientific documents shoudl get it right, but in normal language... I think this is a rather silly think to get worried about, since it actually breaks other linguistic conventions of standard language.)
Two elements of TFA caught my eye:
micrometers
Together, these figures are within the range for a type I (or, maybe even a type II) Dyson sphere.
And, it is only 7.2 light years away?
Yes, it is very probably the Brown Dwarf that the astronomers think it is.
But, imagine. It could be a Dyson sphere; our first evidence of advanced life beyond the earth.
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
Well, I hear the collision with the Andromeda galaxy will shake things up a bit in interstellar space in about 4 billion years...
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Brown dwarves are not stars, this astronomer did not find a star nor the 7th furthest star from the Sun. Brown dwarves are known as "sub-stellar objects". No fusion, no star.
The Sun is ~1 AU away, the three Alpha Centauri stars are 4.24 to 4.37 l.y. away, Bernard's star is just under 6 l.y. away, and the two Luhman 16 brown dwarfs are just over 6.5 l.y. away. The position of Earth in its orbit is not enough to make any of those exceed 7.2 light years. this is either the 8th closest star that we know of, or it is not considered a star at all if you don't want to count brown dwarfs (or might be pushing the lower limit of what is a brown dwarf).
Not any form of FTL travel. Warp drives as currently proposed don't allow travelling into the past and
there might be tweaks to relativity or other as yet unknown methods like worm holes, etc.. that allow
faster travel.