Extrasolar planets details

[vintersorg]

Hi. Is there a good site about extrasolar planets? If possible a list organized by date of detection and with details about each individually. Thanks in advance.

 

[qso1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet<br /><br />This link has a good general overview and if you scroll down some, you will find links to sites with planet listings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vintersorg]

Thanks, I guess I should've checked those links before asking. I was in wiki but totally forgot about the end of the page. Ahah.<br /><br />However, I have now a different question.<br />http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm in this site we see "Gas Giants" and "Hot Jupiters" in different categories. Aren't Hot Jupiters supposed to be Gas Giants? And what's the main difference between both, distance from their parenting star?<br /><br />Also, it says there are 0 earthlike planets, doesn't the recently found Gliese 581 fit that category? Or is this just a lack of updates?<br /><br />Once again, thank you very much.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This is the catalog I use, seems to be updated daily.<br /><br />http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php <br /><br />It also has convenient links to other listings.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[majornature]

I think "hot jupiters" are Jupiter sized planets whose orbit is extremely close to their parent star.<br /><br />I think the same goes for the Hot Neptunes too... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[bearack]

I read that Jupiter could have become another sun. Is there evidence of any other solar systems containing two suns or if Jupiter become a star, would that in turn cancled out our other suns ability and it would be the gas giant?<br /><br />Just some curious questions and please pardon the typos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

Then how is it that their gaseous atmospheres haven't boiled away from the heat? <br /><br />I was under the impression that the jovian planets of our solar system are able to sustain such thick gaseous atmospheres because they are so far from the Sun, meaning they are much colder. While the closer terrestrial planets have thinner atmospheres with rocky surfaces, because their thick atmospheres boiled away early in the solar system's life. <br /><br />Isn't this true?<br /><br />Would the "hot jupiters" mean that they are very young planets? Does the type of star that they orbit have something to do with it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Jupiter is nowhere near massive enough to be a star.<br />IIRC, it would have to be at least 80 times as massive, so if you added everything in the solar system besides the sun, it still would need 50 times a much mass. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[majornature]

I read about that too Bearack. I ask my astronomy professor that same question. He said it would have just been a very dim star if that happened. The sun takes up 99 percent of mass in our solar system. So it would have been insignificant. Jupiter wouldn't stand a chance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[majornature]

Possibly. It is also possible that Jupiter may have been close to the sun during the formation of the solar system and may have "moved" to it current spot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Extremely unlikely.<br /><br />Most planets move inward during stellar system development due to exchage of momentum with the dusty disk.<br /><br />It is possible that Uranus and Neptune may have moved outward in our solar system to to resonant effects with Jupiter, but that's because our solar system is the sun, Jupiter, and some rubble. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[majornature]

Can you prove that?<br /><br />I know that the gravity pulled the heavy material toward the center. But I have an Odd feeling that the were not in the positions that they are in today. They may have been slightly closer before move outward to the current positions... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

We should talk Gleese.Based on the articles The habitability of super-Earths in Gliese 581 by von Bloh et al. and Habitable planets around the star Gliese 581? by Selsis et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2007, vol 476-3, p. 1365-1387, and on the article Dynamical evolution of the Gliese 581 planetary system, by H. Beust, X. Bonfils, X. Delfosse, and S. Udry (To be published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2008) <br /><br />Original A&A article <br /><br />In April, a European team of astronomers announced in Astronomy & Astrophysics the discovery of two possibly habitable Earth-like planets. A&A is now publishing two independent, detailed studies of this system, which confirm that one of the planets might indeed be located within the habitable zone around the star Gliese 581. <br /><br />More than 10 years after the discovery of the first extrasolar planet, astronomers have now discovered more than 250 of these planets. Until a few years ago, most of the newly discovered exoplanets were Jupiter-mass, probably gaseous, planets. Recently, astronomers have announced the discovery of several planets that are potentially much smaller, with a minimum mass lower than 10 Earth masses, what are now called super-Earths [1]. <br /><br />In April, a European team announced in Astronomy & Astrophysics the discovery of two new planets orbiting the M star Gliese 581 (a red dwarf), with masses of at least 5 and 8 Earth masses. Given their distance to their parent star, these new planets (now known as Gliese 581c and Gliese 581d) were the first ever possible candidates for habitable planets. <br /><br />Contrary to Jupiter-like giant planets that are mainly gaseous, terrestrial planets are expected to be extremely diverse: some will be dry and airless, while others will have much more water and gases than the Earth. Only the next generation of telescopes will allow us to tell what these new worlds and their atmospheres are made of and to search for possible indi

 

[adrenalynn]

<font color="yellow">But I have an Odd feeling</font><br /><br />That's called "acid reflux". "Odd feelings" do not physics make... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

What is acid in it?

 

[qso1]

weeman:<br />I was under the impression that the jovian planets of our solar system are able to sustain such thick gaseous atmospheres because they are so far from the Sun, meaning they are much colder.<br /><br />Me:<br />Before 1995, this was the prevailing theory from the scientific community based on what was known prior to the discovery of 51 Pegasi. 51 Pegasi was a hot Jupiter in an orbit so near the sun it became known as a "Torch orbit". As hot Jupiters became common, the old theory had to be revised at best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[bearack]

Thanks for the reponce.<br /><br />I was under the impression that at the creation stage of the solar system, though, both Jupiter and the Sun were nearly the same mass? The sun (my understanding) ended up having a greater gravitational pull than Jupiter, allowing it to out mass Jupiter.<br /><br />Granted, I read this many moons ago and I know that much of this is theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

There's no way that could be possible.<br /><br />The sun was always far more massive than Jupiter, or the system would have developed in a much different way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bearack]

What is your thoughts of Van Der Worp's theory on Jupiters potential of becoming a second sun in the future? Is that more science fiction or potential reality? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I'm not familiar with that theory.<br />I did a quick search and couldn't find anything.<br /><br />Do you have a reference? Or can you explain to me where he gets the other 80 times Jupiters mass that would have to be added to it?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bearack]

Van der Worp argued that a fission reaction might well initiate a much larger thermonuclear fusion reaction in the deuterium making up a significant percentage of Jupiter’s atmosphere – ultimately, igniting Jupiter as the solar system’s second sun.<br /><br />Possible? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't know the answer off the top of my head. <br />I'm not aware that the Deuterium concentration is near high enough for that to happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

I'd think ultimately likely not. Even if such a thing were to take place, the gravity of Jupiter is insufficient to contain it. It would not become self-sustaining, it would merely blow off a large amount of Jupiter's atmosphere and then quit.<br /><br />After all, the reason a Star is able to operate is the precarious balance between the fusion reaction deep within (pushing material outwards), and it's gravity (based on it's mass, of course), pulling inwards.<br /><br />The second in not sufficient in the case of Jupiter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

There's that gravity and mass thing again.<br />Thanx, Yev. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bearack]

Appreciate the input. That makes sense, even with Jupiter’s monstrous gravitational pull, I would have to agree that it's merely only a fraction of that of the sun's now that I think about it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>