New Exoplanet Discovered

[MrSpock183]

<p>I've always considered Jupiter a planet 20 years ago in high school, but now all I consider it is a gas giant with no surface. In other words a failed star, or a star that hasn't evolved yet. I was reading online about a new Earth like planet that was just discovered, (Rocky, Lava, Etc.) but my question is about the star that it revolves around. They say it's a 20 hour day there with temps of 2000 to 3000 degrees. Has it ever been explained that maybe this is a new star so to say, and that when it starts to burn out in a billion years or so that maybe the planet will cool down enough to support life? Look at our sun for example... It couldn't have always been that perfect star, just far enough away to bring winters, and close enough to bring summers. Is&nbsp;our sun burning out which makes life here possible? Think about Jupiter... What if it is a failed star, or a new star forming... Is it large enough to creat an impact here on Earth? Too many questions, so little time...</p>

 

[Hawkster]

<p>Well you have a point there...</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Some solar systems are known to have more than 1 star and they orbit each other. If gas gaints or somehow a new form of star it would probably be to small to be clasified as a star. Or not dense enough to be classified as one. 2 stars would essentialy have some orbit between each other. good description? </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also, star radiation does give out the burned fuel and jettisons it into space. Thats how they think supernovas are the planet life creators, i myself think those are the origins of asteroids, comets, etc. So yes esssentialy we get extra stuff from everywhere tht emits some form of radiotion or particles. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#808080">Every so often, I like to stick my head out the window, look up, and smile for a satellite picture.</font> </div>

 

[MrSpock183]

Okay, but how about my other question...Earth is obviously at that perfect distance from the sun... Do you think our sun has been burning out for billions of years to make life possible on Earth being so close? We see stars burning out all the time from millions of years ago due to the light speed dilemma so could our temperature readings be wrong about temps on other planets? I got off point there... The main question is does a planet have to be a certain distance from a star to support life? Or does the planet revolve until the star cools down enough to allow the planet to support life providing all the elements are there? Take Venus for example... perfect planet to build on, but way too hot to explore. <br />

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>First, Jupiter can never become a star.&nbsp; It simply isn't big(massive) enough to ignite fusion in its core, not even close.&nbsp; It's also not quite massive enough to be considered a brown dwarf(by most people)...in fact, many people speculate that there is most likely a silicate core within it.&nbsp; </p><p>The sun is not cooling appreciably yet.&nbsp; It has been burnign like this for billions of years.&nbsp; It is on the phase of evolution known as the "main sequence", where it is fusing hydrogen in its core to helium via the proton-proton chain.&nbsp; Eventually, after ~10^10 years after the sun's creation, it will run out of hydrogen and leave the main sequence, at which point it will start to become a red giant star and Earth will die if we aren't dead already by then.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Every star has what is called a "habitable zone" which depends on the size and temperature of the star. &nbsp; It is defined as the region in which liquid water can exist. &nbsp; A rocky planet in an M dwarf system would, for example, have to be much closer to the star in order to support life, whereas a planet near an O star would need to be much farther away.&nbsp; Although there is a "perfect distance" for each star for life to be supported, not all stars will have Earths, but I believe we will start to find many more Earth analogues once Kepler and other such missions become operational...and once we are able to directly image them(with TPF-C for example) we can begin to analyze their atmosphere and look for "signposts" of life(i.e. oxygen and water of course, and the feature known as the "red edge" that we see in Earth's spectrum that results from the way plant cells are designed.&nbsp; Even if the other planet has weird purple plants, it should still have a red edge because it is not related to chlorophyll but rather the way plants have evolved.&nbsp; People think the red edge is the most promising thing to search for if we want to find life...whether we ever detect it is another story). </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Gary_Peck]

Do you think exoplanets have moons? or just some of them. Do think any of them are possible of possesing life or are they to far away from a Sun to contain life?

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you think exoplanets have moons? or just some of them. Do think any of them are possible of possesing life or are they to far away from a Sun to contain life? <br /> Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV></p><p>Many exoplanets should have moons.&nbsp; Some people even suggest that it's far more likely to find a habitable moon orbitting a gas giant exoplanet than it is finding a habitable earth-like planet.&nbsp; If a gas giant forms in its star's habitable zone, then the moons could very well sustain life, and we know gas giants in our solar system tend to have large numbers of moons, so the odds are pretty high.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the precision needed to detect the signature of moons in exoplanetary systems is many years away.&nbsp; Even with the newest missions coming out, we will barely be able to detect earth mass planets in the habitable zone.&nbsp; So, the answer to both of your questions is yes, but we won't be able to prove it for many years to come.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rybanis]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you think exoplanets have moons? or just some of them. Do think any of them are possible of possesing life or are they to far away from a Sun to contain life? <br /> Posted by Gary_Peck</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So far, the vast majority of planets found have been very far out of the habitable zone of their parent star. Reciently, we've found (and directly imaged) planets very very FAR outside of the habitable zone, perhaps as far as the Kuiper Belt!</p><p>Any of these planets could have moons, especially the larger ones with massive gravity wells. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've always considered Jupiter a planet 20 years ago in high school, but now all I consider it is a gas giant with no surface. In other words a failed star, or a star that hasn't evolved yet. I was reading online about a new Earth like planet that was just discovered, (Rocky, Lava, Etc.) but my question is about the star that it revolves around. They say it's a 20 hour day there with temps of 2000 to 3000 degrees. Has it ever been explained that maybe this is a new star so to say, and that when it starts to burn out in a billion years or so that maybe the planet will cool down enough to support life? Look at our sun for example... It couldn't have always been that perfect star, just far enough away to bring winters, and close enough to bring summers. Is&nbsp;our sun burning out which makes life here possible? Think about Jupiter... What if it is a failed star, or a new star forming... Is it large enough to creat an impact here on Earth? Too many questions, so little time... <br /> Posted by MrSpock183</DIV></p><p>Let's clear up a few more misconceptions the UFmbulter probably didn't have time to address.&nbsp; First, stars, incuding our sun, actually heat up as they age.&nbsp; Their cores continue to contract as they burn their hydrogen.&nbsp; Once this is complete, they contract further and begin to fuse helium.&nbsp; At this point, the stars of similar mass to the sun will shed their 'surface' material.&nbsp; This surface cools, but that doesn't mean the planets orbiting the star will cool.&nbsp; The closer ones will become enveloped and burn up... This is Earth's destiny.&nbsp; The only stage where one can consider the surface temperature of the orbiting planet to begin cooling would be after the sun or similar stars have completely shed their surface and all that remains is the core... the White Dwarf.</p><p>Even then, the White Dwarf star is far, far hotter than the progenitor star that once was.&nbsp; The main difference in the heat that the planets get from their host star is the amount of radiation received... not how hot the star is.</p><p>This leads to the next misconception of planetary seasons.&nbsp; Earth does not enjoy winter and summer season due to its changing proximity.&nbsp; The Earth's seasons have everything to do with the axial tilt of the Earth.&nbsp; In the northern hemisphere, the north pole is tilted in the direction of the Sun during the summer months and away during the winter.&nbsp; During the winter months, you will notice the Sun is lower in the sky at increasingly higher latitudes.&nbsp; This means we are receiving less radiation.&nbsp; The Sun's 'rays' hit us at more of an angle than during the summer months.</p><p>Though the Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular and we do get closer to the sun periodically, this has a statistically insignificant effect on the Earth's surface temperatures.&nbsp; In fact, in the northern hemisphere, January is usually the coldest months and yet the Earth is at its closest point in its orbit around the sun.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>I just read the article here:</p><p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203110324.htm</p><p>It's not a 20 hour day.&nbsp; It orbits its host star once every 20 days.&nbsp; This means it is pretty close.&nbsp; No chances whatever for this planet to survive any future stages of its star. </p><p>I wouldn't plan any trips... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

Right, I kind of just glazed over the part about the core heating up as it contracts because that doesn't really mean much to us on Earth.&nbsp; When it enters the red giant phase though, like you said, even though the surface cools(hence the red color), we will be inside it when it does, so don't count on snow when the sun runs out of hydrogen...unless your definition of snow is firey death from above. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Right, I kind of just glazed over the part about the core heating up as it contracts because that doesn't really mean much to us on Earth.&nbsp; When it enters the red giant phase though, like you said, even though the surface cools(hence the red color), we will be inside it when it does, so don't count on snow when the sun runs out of hydrogen...unless your definition of snow is firey death from above. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Hot ash falls like snow <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[MrSpock183]

Thanks guys, that clears a lot up. It's amazing how much knowledge you have on this subject. Especially UFmbutler and derekmcd. It was like astronomy class all over again. How are you guys on black holes? I'll leave that for another discussion.

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks guys, that clears a lot up. It's amazing how much knowledge you have on this subject. Especially UFmbutler and derekmcd. It was like astronomy class all over again. How are you guys on black holes? I'll leave that for another discussion. <br /> Posted by MrSpock183</DIV></p><p>I'm mostly a star formation guy, but I do know a bit about blackhole accretion(quasars etc).&nbsp; But when it comes to discussing black holes as it pertains to general relativity and that sort of thing, I leave that for the likes of DrRocket and derek <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately, the precision needed to detect the signature of moons in exoplanetary systems is many years away.&nbsp; Even with the newest missions coming out, we will barely be able to detect earth mass planets in the habitable zone.&nbsp; So, the answer to both of your questions is yes, but we won't be able to prove it for many years to come.&nbsp; <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />May be not that far away in time. Actually the team who managed to image Beta Pictoris b (a very big Jupiter-like planet at 8 Jupiter masses and at 8 AU from its star) last November waits with impatience for 2015 when Beta Pictoris b should hopefully transit Beta Pictoris. They say they hope to detect potential very large exomoons at that time, with one of the very big ground telescopes like the VLT used for the imaging. Indeed around an 8-MJ huge planet you might expect Earth-sized or Mars-sized moons. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081125-st-beta-pictoris.html</p><p>That would not be in the "habitable" zone (in the classical sense) but if the gravity is big enough you might have a part of the protostellar hydrogen and helium captured by a giant moon and insulating thermally a water ocean heated by internal heat ("Pontic planet") from the radiative losses to space. So with a liquid water surface directly under the atmosphere. As would occur on a mini-Uranus.</p><p>Otherwise tidal heating should maintain subglacial oceans anyway Europa-style.</p><p>Best regards.</p>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>May be not that far away in time. Actually the team who managed to image Beta Pictoris b (a very big Jupiter-like planet at 8 Jupiter masses and at 8 AU from its star) last November waits with impatience for 2015 when Beta Pictoris b should hopefully transit Beta Pictoris. They say they hope to detect potential very large exomoons at that time, with one of the very big ground telescopes like the VLT used for the imaging. Indeed around an 8-MJ huge planet you might expect Earth-sized or Mars-sized moons. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081125-st-beta-pictoris.htmlThat would not be in the "habitable" zone (in the classical sense) but if the gravity is big enough you might have a part of the protostellar hydrogen and helium captured by a giant moon and insulating thermally a water ocean heated by internal heat ("Pontic planet") from the radiative losses to space. So with a liquid water surface directly under the atmosphere. As would occur on a mini-Uranus.Otherwise tidal heating should maintain subglacial oceans anyway Europa-style.Best regards. <br /> Posted by h2ouniverse</DIV></p><p>Careful, Beta Pic b is still kind of speculative right now.&nbsp; The latest paper about it states the following (Lagrange et al. 2009, A&A)</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>With these data alone, it is not excluded that the CC could be a<br />foreground or background object. To definitely test this hypothesis,<br />second-epoch measurements are needed. Using the known<br />&beta; Pic proper and parallactic motions, we considered the position<br />of the CC assuming it would be a stationary contaminant. It<br />would be closer than 0.2" to &beta; Pic in 2008, hence not detectable<br />with current techniques. In past years, &beta; Pic has been monitored<br />by numerous programs of the Hubble Space Telescope,<br />including observations using the Advanced Camera for Surveys<br />(Golimowski et al. 2006; Kalas et al. 2005), the Near-Infrared<br />Camera andMulti-Object Spectrometer (Brown et al. 1999), and<br />the Wide Field Planetary Cameras (Kalas et al. 2000). The lack<br />of spatial resolution or the size of the coronographic mask prevented<br />getting any reliable hints of any point sources close to<br />the star.</DIV></p><p>Considering how often specks of light were announced as planets and later had to be rescinded, I dont really believe it until they get the followup measurements.&nbsp; If this planet is what they say it is, it'd have an orbital period of 16 years...so it'll be a while before they get radial velocity confirmation.&nbsp; The debris disk will only serve to complicate things.&nbsp; Considering the debris disk and the planet's separation, I'm not very confident that we'll detect even a super-earth sized moon for a while.&nbsp; However, if any system were going to have rocky moons, this is probably one of the better candidates. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Careful, Beta Pic b is still kind of speculative right now.&nbsp; The latest paper about it states the following (Lagrange et al. 2009, A&A)Considering how often specks of light were announced as planets and later had to be rescinded, I dont really believe it until they get the followup measurements.&nbsp; If this planet is what they say it is, it'd have an orbital period of 16 years...so it'll be a while before they get radial velocity confirmation.&nbsp; The debris disk will only serve to complicate things.&nbsp; Considering the debris disk and the planet's separation, I'm not very confident that we'll detect even a super-earth sized moon for a while.&nbsp; However, if any system were going to have rocky moons, this is probably one of the better candidates. <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />Granted there are still reservations about the imaging. But clues add up. The point is that 27 years ago when studying beta pictoris (the star) they had a big suspicion for a transit detection (see link below). That is 1 period and a half earlier versus 2003, so would be consistent with a high elongation at the time of the imaging in 2003, an occultation by the star in 2007, and a transit half a period later in 2014-2015. They have no certainty, granted, but this is what they hope...</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997A&A...328..311L</p>