Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Huge, Jupiter-Like Storm Rages On Cool 'Failed Star' (nasa.gov)

Posted by Soulskill on from the another-round-of-astronomy-headline-or-hollywood-headline dept.

astroengine writes: Jupiter's Big Red Spot is the largest example of a long-lived storm in the solar system, but now it has some pretty stiff competition in another star system. However, this "exo-storm" hasn't been spied on another gas giant, it's been spotted in the uppermost layers of a cool, small "failed star," or brown dwarf. Using three NASA space telescopes, new research published in The Astrophysical Journal has found that this spot isn't a starspot, but a bona fide storm that has more in common with Jupiter's famous cyclone. So is this really a failed star? Or is is an "overachieving planet"?

38 comments

  1. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my lifetime the hunt for exoplanets has gone from "maybe we could find something if we did this" to "holy crap look at all this stuff" to "my god, it's full of storms".

    To all of the folks doing this stuff ... please, keep up the awesome.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's full of false positives.

    2. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's full of false positives.

      False positives doesn't meant what you think it means. Finding a body which matches the criteria and then turns out to be either a pair of stars or a brown dwarf with a storm is NOT a false positive.

      It means something was detected, and it turned out to be something else we hadn't planned for, but according to the parameters got looked at.

      False positives is if you look at candidates and say "we have no idea why this is even on the list". This is actually finding stuff to look at, and then we realize it's something we'd not yet considered.

      That's science.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing what we can explore by simply staying in our computer chairs and running algorithms, eh? Putting a test pilot in a tin can 400 kilometers up suddenly seems so ... antiquated, quaint, like a 19th century railroad worker.

    4. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all a matter of sensitivity settings.

      If you want to find planets, you set the threshold line just the tiniest little bit above the "nothing even mildly planet-like going on" level and prepare yourself to look at a lot of things that aren't planets while you sift through for some planets.
      If you don't want many any false positives, you set the threshold line just the tiniest bit below "absolutely something heavy and dark orbiting this" and go to sleep until something beeps.

      As with all sensors, you set the sensitivity according to the favorable interaction of positive results and necessary follow-up. In cases like the search for exoplanets, they want the sensor to come back with a lot of results, for a number of reasons that include wanting not to dismiss a potentially interesting star system before focusing any real attention to it.

    5. Re:Wow ... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      No, not quite. A false positive is a test result or measurement which, erroneously, indicates the presence of the condition where in fact the condition does not exist.

      Examples:

      - Laboratory results indicate you have a disease. A more in-depth look indicates that you do not have the disease. This is a false positive, because the test result was wrong.
      - Trillions of calculations are performed on a computer, and a review finds that a few hundred are inaccurate. It seems as though we have no idea why these results have occurred, but after further research a bug is found in the processor (such as the Pentium FDIV bug). This is not a false positive, because the original review (test) was correct with its results despite them being strange.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    6. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that amazing? Not only is it almost the canonical implementation of such tech (second to mass murder), but it sounds incredibly boring to sit at a computer chair running algorithms all day.

      Also very unhealthy and generally personally aimless.

    7. Re:Wow ... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Personally, I would compare it to Columbus. He sailed the Atlantic to find the path to India. He didn't find India, but he found something interesting still.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Yes, except in this case, the star actually dimmed, was identified as a candidate for dimming due to orbital transit of another body. On closer inspection, they found it dimmed not due to transit, but due to a storm.

      That's not a false positive. That's an actual match of the criteria which yielded a completely unexpected situation ... the same as happened with the binary stars.

      Finding that star is NOT a false positive, not by a long shot. The test result wasn't wrong, it just identified something nobody had even contemplated.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Wow ... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Still? I bet it was much more interesting than he originally went for.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    10. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "false" positive rate for Kepler's tiny patch of sky was reported in Astronomy Magazine as around 50% on follow up.

      For doing something completely new and getting half the results confirmed by follow up studies is impressive work. There are fields of study where your paper is doing well if you don't have to issue an immediate retraction because you really found nothing.

      This is also impressive when you consider that all Kepler or any planet finder project had to do was find one system to disprove the 'unique' Solar system theory.

      Now the search is just about how weird the Solar System is. We won't know that until we have much more powerful, longer looks around at more than a postage stamp chunks of the sky.

      But at least now we know "my god, it's full of balls." Lots of balls, all jiggling stars around like kids tugging on parents at the playground. And not all balls that are gassy or so big they glow.

    11. Re:Wow ... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I agree, but your previous post was inconsistent.

      At first you made a correct statement: "Finding a body which matches the criteria and then turns out to be either a pair of stars or a brown dwarf with a storm is NOT a false positive".

      But then you stated an incorrect definition for false positive: "False positives is if you look at candidates and say 'we have no idea why this is even on the list'". Not only was it incorrect, but in this example it contradicts what you said before. The measurement was correct but we didn't originally know why the star dimmed, so according to your latter definition this was a false positive (a contradiction).

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    12. Re:Wow ... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Finding a body which matches the criteria and then turns out to be either a pair of stars or a brown dwarf with a storm is NOT a false positive."

      Are you kidding? That's the very definition of "false positive"!

      "It means something was detected, and it turned out to be something else we hadn't planned for, but according to the parameters got looked at."

      And that's -again, the very definition of "false positive".

      You devise a test to find something (in this case exoplanets), the test rings the bell for that something, then you look more carefully and find that it's not that something. A false positive by the very book!

    13. Re: Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to admit, I LOL'ed.

    14. Re:Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Not when you really think about what this is testing for.

      This is scanning the sky, looking for stars which exhibit a periodic dimming which could be accounted for by an orbiting body blocking some of the light. You cannot look directly for the orbiting body, so you are looking for an unusual behavior in the light of the star .. a cyclic dimming. The star did dim, and was added as a candidate to check to see if it has an exoplanet. In this case, it turned out that it was something they hadn't even considered ... a giant storm on a brown dwarf, but which nonetheless caused the star to dim in a cyclic manner.

      But, see, the light did dim with a periodicity which suggested something might be interesting to look at. This is what they were looking for. That is the search, because this is not a direct search for exoplanets .. it's a search for the possibility of an exoplanet based on what we see of the light from the star.

      When you find what you were looking for ... a star whose light dims in a recurring pattern ... that is not a damned false positive. That's a hit with an unexpected reason.

      In this case, a true false positive would be looking closely at the star, and finding no evidence the light from the star ever goes through a periodic dimming, and wondering why the machine went 'ping'.

      They literally found something which matched the criteria. It just so happens that in the case of binary stars and giant storms of brown dwarf stars ... you stumble on something you didn't know you might find.

      What they didn't do is devise a test to look for exoplanets. They devised a test to look for stars which exhibit a certain kind of behavior so it could be flagged as interesting for further examination to see if there might be exoplanets.

      It worked, they found something interesting, albeit unexpected. But in terms of identifying a star whose light dims and brightens and is therefore worthy of a closer look ... this is not by any stretch of the imagination a "false positive".

      That's the criteria they were looking for. It just so happens the universe has more cool things that we plan for in advance.

      So, if you mistakenly think this is a direct test to find an exoplanet, you will think this is a false positive. But they were looking for the exoplanets based on some indirect evidence, which is turns out also finds you more than you expected.

      If you build a mammal detector, and find a squirrel instead of a human, that's not a false positive. If you build a detector for stars whose light dims and then brightens, and find one of those ... that's not a false positive

      But you must understand what the test is actually testing for.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:Wow ... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Not when you really think about what this is testing for."

      Exoplanets.

      That's exactly why when they first got the results they claimed "Hey! we found a lot of exoplanets".

      "This is scanning the sky, looking for stars which exhibit a periodic dimming"

      No. That was looking for exoplanets by scanning the sky for stars which exhibit a periodic dimming.

      Your claim makes as much sense as if you said "oh, no! that's not a false positive in an HIV test, they were not looking for HIV, just for HIV-like antibodies!"

      "If you build a mammal detector, and find a squirrel instead of a human, that's not a false positive."

      Of course not, but that wasn't the case. If you build a human detector and find a squirrel instead of a human because in the end it happens the human detector is not so good at detecting humans and just humans, it's still a false positive. If after the fact you find that your device is not so good at detecting humans -and just humans, you ditch the device, you don't start going over there telling it wasn't a false positive after all.

    16. Re:Wow ... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      He was expecting curry and got pemmican. That's probably a letdown. (Some of the family still eats that stuff. I am not a fan.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Cool 'Failed Star' by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    So, pretty much this is like Mickey Rourke, Val Kilmer, or Tila Tequila?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Cool 'Failed Star' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus christ, you just put Val Kilmer in the same sentence as Tila Tequila?

    2. Re:Cool 'Failed Star' by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking more like Keanu Reeves.

      --
      That is all.
    3. Re:Cool 'Failed Star' by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Keanu Reeves has an estimated net worth of $350 million ... I'm not sure I'd call him a failed star.

      Love him or hate him, pretty much everyone knows who he is.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Cool 'Failed Star' by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Jesus christ, you just put Val Kilmer in the same sentence as Tila Tequila?

      Yes. That's just how insightful a comment it was.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Cool 'Failed Star' by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Except in all actuality Tila Tequila is a brown dwarf.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    6. Re:Cool 'Failed Star' by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Keanu Reeves has an estimated net worth of $350 million ... I'm not sure I'd call him a failed star.

      Love him or hate him, pretty much everyone knows who he is.

      Dude, Totally!
      If we lack names for failed stars, there's lots of Kardashians...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  3. No way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not falling for that "Check out the dark spot on this brown dwarf" prank again!

  4. Is is by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Or is is an "overachieving planet"?

    Won't find anyone overachieving on the editing team at Slashdot.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Is is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is is an "overachieving planet"?

      Won't find anyone overachieving on the editing team at Slashdot.

      BURRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Great Red Spot by SeeManRun · · Score: 1

    I believe it is the Great Red Spot, and not the Big Red Spot. While it may not matter much for the story, seems like an obvious thing to get wrong...

  6. Does it orbit another star? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only difference between a brown dwarf and a supergiant planet is that the latter orbits another star, while a brown dwarf is the largest thing in its star system. A brown dwarf basically is a supermassive planet, just a rogue one (not orbiting another star), so the question at the end of this summary is dumb.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:Does it orbit another star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, brown dwarves have been found orbiting other stars.

    2. Re:Does it orbit another star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit and whoever modded you up is a fucktard too. Brown dwarves fuse atoms, planets don't. End of fucking story.

    3. Re:Does it orbit another star? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown dwarfs are hot enough to fuse deuterium, or in some less common definitions, have some more general sort of non-sustained fusion. Stars are large enough to sustain pp or higher temperature reactions, beyond just using heat from formation and reacting some minority nuclei. It has nothing to do with whether it is orbiting something else or not.

    4. Re:Does it orbit another star? by Spinalcold · · Score: 1

      Since most star systems are binary this is false. A brown dwarf is a star that is just under the mass needed to ignite fusion but they are still intensely hot in the infrared spectrum. Jupiter is still several times too small to be a brown dwarf.

  7. Where are the fucking pictures? by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 1

    I mean, they can peek billions of years into the past to the edge of the visible universe, image nebulae and supernovae, figure out that this start has in fact several layers - but we never see a direct fucking image? What's the catch here?!

    1. Re:Where are the fucking pictures? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. I don't want an "illustration" or "artist's impression", I want to see what they actually saw. Pics or it didn't happen.