Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Exoplanets That Never Were

Posted by samzenpus on from the planetary-false-positive dept.

StartsWithABang writes In 1992, scientists discovered the first planets orbiting a star other than our Sun. The pulsar PSR B1257+12 was discovered to have its own planetary system, and since then, exoplanet discoveries have exploded. But before that, in 1963, decades of research led to the much-anticipated publication and announcement of an exoplanet discovered around Barnard's star, the second-closest star system to Earth. Unfortunately, it turned out to be spurious, and it took years to uncover, an amazing story which is only now fully coming to light.

31 comments

  1. Re:POTUS declared war on ISIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, you KNOW that he armed these guys and his cover was blown, right?

  2. Re:POTUS declared war on ISIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll try to do it all with air strikes, accidentally kill one or two civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, there'll be an international outcry, and we'll quietly back down and fervently hope those scary ISIL guys will stay over there until we get someone else in the White House in a couple of years.

  3. So close, and yet so far away. by rmdingler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You know, we're right on the verge of possessing the technology of an advanced, universe exploring, sentient life form.

    Keep that in mind for perspective when the next beheading video hits the internet.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:So close, and yet so far away. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Technological advances don't imply moral advances.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:So close, and yet so far away. by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Yea, and yet those evil people in Taiji keep killing them. Its our job to protect the dolphins so can explore the universe. We certainly aren't.

  4. Red dwarfs form from so little matter by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not surprised that there are no planets. Red dwarfs form from very small amounts of matter, and don't have the luminosity or stellar wind to stop the in-fall of matter into the central star. I don't doubt they can form, the same way double stars form, but the odds are lower. Just a lot less initial material to start with.

    1. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by radtea · · Score: 2

      I'm not surprised that there are no planets.

      Given that we've discovered planets everywhere we never expected planets to be, being "not surprised" at not finding planets is pretty weird. The damned things are everywhere!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by erice · · Score: 0

      I'm not surprised that there are no planets. Red dwarfs form from very small amounts of matter, and don't have the luminosity or stellar wind to stop the in-fall of matter into the central star. I don't doubt they can form, the same way double stars form, but the odds are lower. Just a lot less initial material to start with.

      What a strange statement.

      1) The star in question was a pulsar, not a red dwarf.
      2) Red dwarfs while small for stars are still much bigger than planets.
      3) Exoplanets have been found around red dwarfs
      4) Pulsars are the remains of large stars.

    3. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by Teresita · · Score: 1

      Exoplanets are everywhere and the astronomers keep jacking up all our classic science fiction novels set in the neighborhood by revealing the actual layout of the systems...

    4. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by Trogre · · Score: 4, Informative

      The star in question is Barnard's Star, a red dwarf.

      Pulsar PSR B1257+12 was credited in the summary as an example at the start of the modern explosion in discovering extrasolar planets, not the one that was mistakenly thought to have planets.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by able1234au · · Score: 2

      Given that Red Dwarves (Dwarfs?) are like large jupiters and jupiter has moons, why would a Red Dwarf not have moon-like objects? Whether we call them planets or moons is just a matter of classification.

    6. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that Red Dwarves (Dwarfs?)

      Both are usable in that case.
      One can argue that "Dwarfs" is more correct, while "Dwarves" have been around for awhile it wasn't really much in use until Tolkien popularized it.
      On the other hand, using "Dwarfs" as a noun leads to a situation where a word can mean both a noun and a verb. Consistently using "Dwarves" in the noun case removes that ambiguity.

    7. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      In the case of Jupiter, the original gas cloud is falling toward the Sun. Once the Sun becomes a protostar, the solar wind and light pressure pushes the infalling gas back out, away from the Sun, and toward Jupiter. A red dwarf generates far less wind and light pressure, and there is less stuff to start with. It doesn't mean that planets can't form, it just lowers the probability.

    8. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      If we ignited Jupiter, what would happen to the moons orbiting it? Hmm, they would be consumed. That's why red dwarves (hi ho!) have no planets around them.

    9. Re:Red dwarfs form from so little matter by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      But there are examples of exoplanets orbiting Red Dwarfs. Google is your friend.

    10. Re: Red dwarfs form from so little matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No necessarily. Not all moons are close. A Red Dwarf is many times the size of Jupiter and so their moons would be further out.

    11. Re: Red dwarfs form from so little matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that some material would be from been blown back and some would be accelerated as the I falling material spun up the disk. Eventually there is enough material with orbital speed and clumping up so it would not infall. There should be some models out there.

  5. Great, more ammunition for the xians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't believe in other planets, and now this will "prove" to them that it is all a scam. That is the way of their kind. They not only ignore science, they actively hate it and work against it. Again, a scumbag lying scientist is making our job even harder. Too bad he is dead so we can't put him in prison for this crime.

  6. Amazing story by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not sure "amazing story" is something else than marketing here :-)

  7. Re:POTUS declared war on ISIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombing a wedding will do that...

  8. Most Compelling Reason to Doubt "Consensus" by fygment · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Science is full of stories like this.
    Someone presents a result that catches the imagination. They achieve "great scientific stature".
    Someone else quesions the result. They are pilloried while the "consensus" sides with the person of "great scientific stature".
    But if there is persistence, sometimes the person of "great scientific stature", and by extension, the "consensus" is proven wrong.

    The lesson: "consensus" is meaningless in science. It is desctructive, politically-driven artifact that inhibits the discovery of truth.

    Sad fact: Stories like this have happened over and over and over again in science. And we never learn.
    Other sad fact: Almost nobody in this forum will recognize the import of this article.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Most Compelling Reason to Doubt "Consensus" by operagost · · Score: 1

      ANNNNNND of course you're modded Flamebait.

      I guess you hit a nerve.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  9. Re:POTUS declared war on ISIL by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    More like accidentally kill 100,000 civilians and threaten to cut off anyone in the press corps who dares to bring it up.

    there is a 100k civilians left in Syria? I thought assad killed almost anyone not actively fighting for or against him.

  10. Re:POTUS declared war on ISIL by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    Not like we haven't before.