Slashdot Mirror
First Planet Known To Orbit a White Dwarf Is Falling Apart (nasa.gov)
schwit1 writes: It's virtually certain that some white dwarfs still have planets in orbit despite their violent histories, but seeing those planets has proven difficult... at least, until now. Astronomers using the Kepler space observatory have spotted a planet circling around WD 1145+017, a white dwarf 570 light years away. Not that it's in great shape, mind you. The unusual light signature (PDF) from the dying star hints that the planet is disintegrating under the star's gravitational pressure, leaving behind a giant dust cloud. Researchers suspect it fell into its fatal orbit after the star's rapid change in mass triggered a planetary collision.
You should see more discoveries like this in the future, since the weaker light of a white dwarf is less likely to obscure planets. There's even a chance (however small) that collisions have bumped some planets into habitable zones, giving scientists an unusually clear view of worlds that could support life. Either way, it's evident that planetary systems don't vanish simply because their host stars are running out of time.
You should see more discoveries like this in the future, since the weaker light of a white dwarf is less likely to obscure planets. There's even a chance (however small) that collisions have bumped some planets into habitable zones, giving scientists an unusually clear view of worlds that could support life. Either way, it's evident that planetary systems don't vanish simply because their host stars are running out of time.
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
Can someone explain to non-physicist how this rapid change in mass happens?
Another Dyson Sphere detected!
regardless of what the summary says, because
A) The star itself is smaller than a 'normal' star, making an occlusion more unlikely, and
B) Most inner planets are likely gone after the red giant phase, leaving only planets further away which are less likely to occlude the line of sight from Earth, and
C) Any configurations like this particular one are fleeting and on a cosmological timescale it is exceedingly unlikely we'll catch it at the right moment.
Nope.
White dwarfs are stars that have gone through an expansion to red giants & then shrink back down once they run out of low atomic level fuel like hydrogen & helium.
All planets close enough to be in a white dwarf's "habitable zone" would have been well inside the star during the star's red giant phase.
Unless someone comes up with a mechanism for the planets to escape from the red giant & then migrate even further inward to the white dwarf's now much smaller & closer "habitable zone", its extremely implausible.
Somebody please reassure me that this is once again a "journalist" attempting to talk of matters that far outstrip his comprehension & not an astrophysicist gone barking mad.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
That explains Slashdot's new slogan:
Yesterday's news, tomorrow.
May not be a Dyson Sphere, could still be (the result of) a Death Star!
Shouldn't the verb be, "was"? I mean, we're talking about over half a century ago when all this happened.
I meant "millenium", not "century", duh.
>> You should see more discoveries like this in the future
I'm sorry, I don't currently have access to the Kepler space observatory. Perhaps YOU'LL see...
We're now observing what happened 570 years ago. It's important and sciency to keep that in perspective.
the planet fell apart 570 years ago.
We don't call them "White Dwarf" any more. Now, they're known as "White Little People".
You are welcome on my lawn.
the planet is disintegrating under the star's gravitational pressure
I'm guessing that's not the actual scientific term for whatever's happening to it. So what is? Is it a tidal forces thing?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Most of the articles that I've read on this matter say 'planetesmil' (or something like that), not planet . This implies that it's more likely the size of an asteroid, or perhaps slightly larger, not planet-sized.
so many times before in our own solar system so we could calibrate our instruments and correlate the actual observed phenomena to these changes in light to allow us to then see those light changes in a distant solar system and therefore know what is happening out there........ oh...... um......wait, it guess we have NOT ever actually observed such an event and therefor this bit of change in light from a distant star is only fueling speculation about what is happening in that distant solar system.
The people pushing this narrative may very well be correct, BUT there may also be some explanation that they simply have not thought of. The idea that their explanation of their observations is the only possible explanation in the universe is patently absurd. We used to get treated to all sorts of sciencey paintings of what Mars was like based on fuzzy optical observations from far away - and the concept art for Mars included water-filled canals and huge regions of green vegitation that changed seasonally, obviously farmed by Martians. There are far too many of these bold proclamations pouring out of NASA these days accompanied by concept art to illustrate the claims. Until we have actual observations that produce actual images, rather than creative concept art painted to match the preconceived notions of the astronomers involved, there's no "there" there. This is as solid and scientific as "The Wizard of Oz" (which also included some science-related facts like "tornadoes destroy farms" and "hot air rises and can lift manned balloons"...) though there will doubtless be more research grants forthcoming.
Considering white dwarfs live an insanely long time, the star isn't "running out of time."
If a habitable planet was orbiting a white dwarf, life on that planet could potentially go on for billions and billions of years, barring any planet-killing catastrophes. The star would slowly cool, but life once formed might be able to adapt to the cooling temperatures over billions of years.
A red dwarf would be better, though. They're practically immortal and keep a steady output over their lifetime. Only problem there is that the habitable zone is really, really close to a red dwarf.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
it has little to do with this other than the general concept of observing a stellar transit.
The point is that there is more speculation here than actual science. There is SOME interesting observation data, but nothing to calibrate it with and compare it to. The conclusions and artwork are as tethered to facts as the pronouncements of Carmack the Magnificent and as likely to be proven wrong someday as the aforementioned pronouncements about Mars were once we actually sent a probe to Mars for REAL up-close observations. Now that we have seen Mars up-close, we CAN make useful conclusions about things we see at Mars from a distance (like from Hubble). Same for all the other bodies in this solar system. Once we have directly imaged them in sufficient detail to know what's there, generally and what sort of body we are observing, THEN we can make great volumes of well-established conclusions about subsequent remote observations.
Just look at all the surprises we are seeing at Pluto from one probe flyby that are re-writing the book on the planet and its moons relative to what was learned and believed from remote observations before the fly-by. Do you have a firm grasp of just how much farther away that white dwarf is than Pluto is? It's many orders of magnitude farther. The observations are likely to be that much more inaccurate.