Failed stars may succeed in planet business

[drwayne]

NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted the very beginnings of what might become planets around the puniest of celestial orbs - brown dwarfs, or "failed stars." <br /><br />The telescope's infrared eyes have for the first time detected clumps of microscopic dust grains and tiny crystals orbiting five brown dwarfs. These clumps and crystals are thought to collide and further lump together to eventually make planets. Similar materials are seen in planet-forming regions around stars and in comets, the remnants of our own solar system's construction. <br /><br />The findings provide evidence that brown dwarfs, despite being colder and dimmer than stars, undergo the same initial steps of the planet-building process. <br /><br />Rest of the story:<br /><br />http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0510/20spitzer/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Maybe it has not failed, but it is in infancy stage, and as it grows it pulls more and more fuel for the fire until one day KABOOM, a star is born. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mikeemmert]

I don't understand why brown dwarves are not called "stars". Objects larger than 13 Jupiter masses fuze hydrogen with deuterium in their cores. They shine by the energy of nuclear fusion, and therefore meet the definition of a star.<br /><br />And they run out of fuel in about a billion years, since there's not that much deuterium floating around. Still, they are not "failed" stars. They are "dead" stars. It's probably better to call new brown dwarves "live brown dwarves", since most are dead. <br /><br />There are other stars that do not use hydrogen 1 for fuel. Horizontal branch stars burn helium, as do Wolf-Rayet stars. Neutron "stars" do not even do fusion!

 

[siriusmre]

Well, that's ONE WAY to interpret this.<br /><br />As a newbie to SDC (but not necessarily to planet science in general) I am astounded at the way certain concepts are assumed as if there is no other explanation. It kind of reminds me of the way that a simple mistake that a student can sometimes make early on while solving a complicated math problem that then causes the final answer to be wrong (in the context of the proper solution). Within the context of the mistaken thinking, though, everything seems to work out just fine. It is not until the initial small error is pointed out that it becomes clear how it affected the final answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"I am astounded at the way certain concepts are assumed as if there is no other explanation."</i><br /><br />Stellar evolution is very well understood - we see star formation in all stages of development; from their births to their deaths. <br /><br />That being said, we still don't have a firm handle on how galaxies (and their super-massive BH "Seeds") came into being; but it is theorized that BHs formed very shortly after the Big Bang as a result of "m" (mass) and gravity being created as the Singularity underwent "Inflation".<br /><br />It is hypothesized that BHs are a result of lumpiness in the newly created "m" of the early universe. We just can't see far enough back in time to observe where these BHs come from, because as far back as we can view, Globular Clusters (and their BH "seeds") are already formed!<br /><br />We also have problems understanding how smaller "Sub-solar systems" form if they don't collect enough material to initiate fusion; and thus become illuminated for us to observe.<br /><br />In my opinion, galaxies are populated with millions of these "Sub-solar Systems" and they comprise much of the "Missing Matter" or Dark Matter of the universe - which is necessary to hold galaxies together!<br /><br />These Sub-solar (Brown Dwarf and smaller) systems could not have rocky planets because these require a "Solar Wind" (a central star) to blow off their light gases and reveal their rocky cores.<br /><br />I believe we'll find galaxies are populated with millions of these invisible collections of Sub-solar orbiting systems in all sizes and configurations.

 

[Philotas]

The ironic thing about this thread is: can planets orbit brown dwarfs? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Can't think of any reason why they shouldn't.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nexium]

Since planets often have moons, I see no good reason why brown dwarf "failed" stars should have no planets.<br />My guess is a lot of what we "know" about steller evolution ain't so. Some brown dwarfs may have enough dueterium for several billion years of fusion. Neil

 

[nexium]

Please give us details about black hole seeds. Neil

 

[bonzelite]

"Stellar evolution is very well understood - we see star formation in all stages of development; from their births to their deaths."<br /><br />--i don't think stellar evolution is well understood. the "hot gas disk turning for billions of years accretes, ignites, and we have a solar system" is the only accepted model. the observed disks in various stages of "evolution" may not ever be accreting ever, never. the gas and debris fields may be left over material from a past event; not material about to become planets or stars. <br /><br /> "In my opinion, galaxies are populated with millions of these "Sub-solar Systems" and they comprise much of the "Missing Matter" or Dark Matter of the universe - which is necessary to hold galaxies together! <br /><br />These Sub-solar (Brown Dwarf and smaller) systems could not have rocky planets because these require a "Solar Wind" (a central star) to blow off their light gases and reveal their rocky cores. "<br /><br />--this assumes "missing matter" is even true. cosmologists cannot understand the universe really, so they make up "dark matter" to keep existing theories sacred and intact at all costs. <br /><br />and maybe brown dwarf and smaller systems have rocky planets. who is to say, as well, that all gas planets have rocky cores? maybe some do not. i don't even think we understand planetary formation very well. they have already found a planet "that should not exist" orbiting around a triple star system. <br /><br />it will be amusing to watch how they will shoehorn more amendments and articles to the current model of solar system formation as they find more and more exotic objects that "baffle" existing theorists.

 

[Philotas]

Talking definitions here... Wondering if they should be called moons or something else. Some of the biggest exo-planets found so far are arguably brown dwarfes. Things gets complicated as a result. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"...the "hot gas disk turning for billions of years accretes, ignites, and we have a solar system" is the only accepted model."</i><br /><br /> -- I think this is a good basic model. As we learn more, refinements will be made; but I believe the basic concept is sound. Do you have another idea?<br /><br />-----<br /><br /><i>"The observed disks in various stages of "evolution" may not ever be accreting ever, never. The gas and debris fields may be left over material from a past event; not material about to become planets or stars."</i><br /><br /> -- I totally agree that many accretion discs probably fail to form into Solar Systems for any number of reasons (just like Saturn has so far failed to coalesce its debris rings into larger planetary bodies). Stellar nurseries seem to be very active places and disruptions may be the norm. <br /><br />BTW - I'm sure you know that our own Solar System formed from "left over material from a past event". Galaxies seem to be in the recycling business... <br /><br />-----<br /><br /><i>"This assumes "missing matter" is even true..."</i><br /><br /> -- The "Missing Matter" issue is a simple physics problem. Galaxies rotate faster than they should given the amount "m" in their observable stars; the stars themselves don't provide enough "m" (or gravitational mass) to keep them from just flying apart. Therefore, there MUST be more "m" out there which we just can't see.<br /><br />What's totally up in the air is what this "Dark Matter", or unobserved mass, is comprised of. Tops on the list of candidate for "Dark Matter" includes: BHs, Brown Dwarf and smaller celestial systems and/or objects, dead stars, dust, some kind of exotic sub-atomic cosmic debris; whatever else you can think of... It's just stuff that we can't see but know it MUST be there! Do you have any ideas about what holds galaxies together?<br /><br />-----<br /><br /><i>"and maybe brown dwarf and smaller systems have rocky planets. who is to say, as well, that all gas p</i>

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I think this is a good basic model. As we learn more, refinements will be made; but I believe the basic concept is sound. Do you have another idea?"<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />"Refinements" to a dead theory have, IMHO, stalled the scientific progress of astronomy. I--and others!--propose a complete paradigm shift.<br /><br />Imagine that stars are part of a galactic electrical circuit. Filling all of "empty" space are (mostly) invisible Birkeland currents, whose twisting and spiraling filaments criss-cross the cosmos and connect one galaxy to another through their poles. The current running through the galactic poles causes the galactic discs to spin, like a Faraday motor. The current runs down the spiral arms and returns through the galactic poles, pinching and accreting matter in the galactic disc along the way, producing stars. Sometimes, the galaxy receives a surge of power from the cosmos and transmits it to galaxies, causing the electrical stresses on some stars to be so great that they actually fission in order to increase the surface area across which to distribute their charge, creating either binary solar mates or gas giant planets. After expelling its companion, often there is a column of plasma remaining between the "parent" and the "child." In this column of plasma rocky bodies are present, like crumbs, along with copius amounts of various gases and water. Some of those rocky bodies probably have conditions perfect for life. The system stays this way until it receives another galactic power surge, which may force it to change its configuration further in order to achieve electrical equilibrium, perhaps by arranging the bodies in the system in a different way, or even by more fissioning. In time--as few as thousands of years--it may even look something like our system does today.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I totally agree that many accretion discs probably fail to f</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

I thought the "Vacky Vorld of Velikovsky" and Electric Universe theories were finally put to rest by the results of the Deep Impact spacecraft mission that impacted Comet Tempel-1 in 2005. Didn't the Electric Universe model utterly fail to predict the outcome of this experiment?<br /><br />I don't believe the Electric Universe theory corresponds to the physical reality of how things work in the real world...

 

[bonzelite]

"BTW - I'm sure you know that our own Solar System formed from "left over material from a past event". Galaxies seem to be in the recycling business... "<br />--yes. 'tis true. <br /><br />insofar as the EM model. i don't really toot my horn about that anymore. it has some merits. as well as flaws. i think plasma physics is largely kept out of cosmology. i think redshift is not only a measure of doppler shift/recessional velocity. there are many examples of neighboring objects with very different redshift values.<br /><br />i think what is presently known about stellar evolution is extremely lacking in completeness. our own sun is extremely exotic and mysterious. perhaps fusion within it's interior is actually "cold." there was a lab experiment done whereby they replicated a process on the sun and the farther into a swirling gas cloud of "x" density, the COLDER it became. i need to find that article now. it's bugging me. i saw it last week. <br /><br />i don't fully buy the accretion of matter idea. i think it may happen, but is overrated. the solar system may not have accreted from a disk of debris. our asteroid belt will never accrete. objects in that situation collide and deflect. not pile up. <br /><br />perhaps the biggest thing i do not AT ALL buy into the is the big bang. i will go out and say that theory is ridiculous. to actually believe in the theoretical math puporting all known and unknown matter --infinitely compacted into an invisible speck of infinity-- then to explode and garner the perceived cosmos --that being "finite"-- is laughable. <br /><br />how did it all get here? i cannot say. i'm apt to believe it never began --nor will it end. but is forevermore changing.

 

[siriusmre]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I thought the 'Vacky Vorld of Velikovsky' and Electric Universe theories were finally put to rest by the results of the Deep Impact spacecraft mission that impacted Comet Tempel-1 in 2005."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />"Vacky Vorld of Velikovsky." Nice characterization. It is exactly this type of hubristic thinking that has prevented astronomers from solving many of their long-standing cosmological dilemmas. "That CAN'T be right," "I just can't buy that," they say. Those people who hold that view immediately shut themselves off from the possibility that there is an alternate model, another way to see things that is JUST AS VALID as--if not more than--the currently widely accepted model.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Didn't the Electric Universe model utterly fail to predict the outcome of this experiment?"<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Are you kidding? "Utterly fail to predict," you say? Didn't the standard model fail to predict such an energetic impact? Didn't the standard model fail to predict that the impactor would experience a preliminary discharge bolt from the cmet before it actually impacted?<br /><br />There was at least one EU source that did, in fact, predict many of the aspects of the Comet Tempel 1 impact, including the lack of an abundance of water below the surface of the comet nucleus; electrical stress may short out the electronics on board the impactor before impact; more energy will be released from the impact because of the electrical contributions of the comet itself; x-rays will be produced and the intensity curve may resemble that of a lightning strike and contain many peaks; measured temperatures will be MUCH higher than can be accounted for in mechanical impact heating; and, the impact will not reveal "primordial dirty ice," but a composition similar to the surface.<br /><br />Futher, I don't think that ALL of the data from the impactor has been released from N <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i'm not totally in agreement with all aspects of the EM model, but the impact at Tempel 1 pretty much throws out the whole "dirty snoball" idea. comets feature plasma tails. the journals often cite "ionized tails" from the "solar wind." but all of this politically correct and inept wording is used to avoid AT ALL COSTS admitting that plasma dynamics has anything to do with cosmological reasoning. so that alone is incriminating to standard models. <br /><br />even small amounts of EM ideas can threaten the current scientific political comfort zone and poses to overturn, to an alarmingly embarrassing extent, some of the "facts."

 

[jatslo]

"...<font color="yellow">Those people who hold that view immediately shut themselves off from the possibility that there is an alternate model, another way to see things that is JUST AS VALID as--if not more than--the currently widely accepted model.</font>.."<br /><br />Those people are cowards too; how dare they force their theories without offering alternative perspectives. It is this pestilence that is counter productive to forward progress, and it is this behavior that blinds us from the truth. I am surprised Einstein was able to rise from the ashes of pestilence.

 

[bonzelite]

that is a very good point. <br /><br />what began to steal a little of the thunder away from the EM model [for me] is that they seem to REJECT possibly valid ideas that exist within the standard models. and that is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. <br /><br />so here we sit.

 

[telfrow]

And what do the last few comments have to do with drwayne's orginal post: <i>NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted the very beginnings of what might become planets around the puniest of celestial orbs - brown dwarfs, or "failed stars."</i>?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[rhodan]

Jatslo, bonzelite & SiriusMrE,<br /><br />Please stop hijacking and derailing every thread in this science forum with your pseudo-science. If you want to debate the elcetric universe theory, there is room for it here at SdC, but I'd like to advise you to take your discussions to the Phenomena forum, instead of polluting this science forum with them. <br /><br />Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>SiriusMrE -</b><br /><br />Just an aside...<br /><br />My flip comment concerning "The Vacky Vorld Of Velikovsky" was in reference to a very long running topic which discussed Velikovsky <i>ad infinitum & ad nauseum</i> here at SDC.<br /><br />The topic was in <b>SDC BC</b> (<b>S</b>pace <b>D</b>ot <b>C</b>om <b>B</b>efore the <b>C</b>rash). Unfortunately, this scintillating and very long running flame war has been lost to the forum forever; (a loss that I would equate is as great as the burning of the great library at Alexandria...). <br /><br />I believe the "VVofV" thread had over 500 posts and about 10,000 views when it suffered its untimely and regrettable demise. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" />

 

[jatslo]

I don't know, I replied to someone else; find the source and deal with it.

 

[bonzelite]

of course EM it is not completely believable. but it has elements of truth in it. just like the standard models --they are not completely believable either. but have truth in them. <br /><br />this whole "SDC meltdown" catch phrase is a reaction against fringe ideas. you maybe should consider the big bang a "phenonomenon" and fringe --as it is an outlandish idea. --you actually believe that ALL matter known and unknown was once in a speck of nothingness of infinite density?! and if i call that out as a bit lunatic, then i must say it in the phenomenon forum? <br /><br />we do not hijack every thread. and i can tell you, you will not get anywhere by wallowing in the same dirty bath water of prior knowledge. i can tell you that. <br /><br />see you in the phenomenon boards. <br />

 

[rhodan]

<i>of course EM it is not completely believable. but it has elements of truth in it. just like the standard models --they are not completely believable either. but have truth in them.</i><br /><br />The whole electric universe theory certainly has one quality; the imagination behind the whole concept. But it has failed as a scientific theory: science is about facts, observations and evidence. There is no scientific backing for this theory.<br /><br />I have no problem whatsoever with just ONE thread about this subject in this forum, so the theory can be defended and debunked as it has been before, on numerous occasions, but to have it appear in virtually every thread disrupts the normal flow of converstation, and that is something we simply can no accept. So I suggest you start a seperate thread on the subject and refrain from derailing other threads with it.<br /><br />After reading my last post, I realize I was too strong in wording my message. I aplogize for the somewhat strong language, especially the use of the word 'polluting'. That was not exactly the way I want and intend to communicate with members of this fine community. I apologize.<br /><br />The message itself remains valid though.