PDA

View Full Version : Astronomy: First Photograph of Extrasolar Planet



Death and the Sun
Monday, April 4th, 2005, 03:17 PM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/TECH/space/04/01/extrasolar.planet.photo/story.extrasolar.planet.pho.jpg

There are about 150 objects outside our solar system that have been confirmed as planets. However until now no images of them have existed. Despite the fact that this image was made public of April Fools' day, it is real. It shows an extremely large gas giant -- twice the size of Jupiter, our Solar System's largest planet -- orbiting a star similar to our Sun but much younger.

The discovery of the planet raises several questions for astronomers: it is very far from the star it orbits, about 100 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun, but nevertheless is very large, which until now has been thought unlikely. Another problem is that previously it was believed that planets this big could not exist in very young solar systems such as this one.

The star, CQ Lupi, is about 400 light years from our Solar System.

The Horned God
Monday, April 4th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Is it possible, I wonder that that planet could have been captured from another star?
Its amazing to be able to see such a thing visually, anyway, and to think that, as it is 400 light years away we are looking at it as it was 400 years ago, it's a time-machine of sorts.

Erlingr Hįrbaršarson
Monday, April 4th, 2005, 07:04 PM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/TECH/space/04/01/extrasolar.planet.photo/story.extrasolar.planet.pho.jpg
Fascinating, Eldritch; thank you.


There are about 150 objects outside our solar system that have been confirmed as planets. However until now no images of them have existed. Despite the fact that this image was made public of April Fools' day, it is real. It shows an extremely large gas giant -- twice the size of Jupiter, our Solar System's largest planet -- orbiting a star similar to our Sun but much younger. How are we knowing of this star having properties to that of a sun, e.g. is it at the centre of its solar system, and additionally that it has been extant for such a shorter period? Was this hypothesised on account of its rather small measurements as an ellipsoid? That would make sense, but I find that silly untill we know its exact length of existance. Do we have any hypotheses as to the temperature of its corona or prominences? One could conclude a generalised age, with the margin in error being in but millions of years, from such readings of temperature.


The discovery of the planet raises several questions for astronomers: it is very far from the star it orbits, about 100 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun, but nevertheless is very large, which until now has been thought unlikely. Another problem is that previously it was believed that planets this big could not exist in very young solar systems such as this one. How was the age of the foreign solar system calculated?
Perhaps this "sun" has exhausted its hydrogenium supply and is all ready descending from a redgiant phase, which occured at a distance too great to affect Earth, and is now phasing through its cooling stage where its thermal pulsations are sending planetary nebulae -maybe this "sun" even is a nebula(!)- untill it fades to white dwarfism. It could very well be that this foto is in fact freesing a moment in the aeons of staged death of this much older, contra the momentarily concurred 'younger', system. What is your source for this foto, Eldritch? Was it taken by the ESAs and NASAs SOHO project? Thank you.


The star, CQ Lupi, is about 400 light years from our Solar System.
Well, I know we are roughly 8,3 light minutes from the sun, but does any one know the maximal distance in light minutes or astronomical units from which light still bears its fundamental properties? (I realise that exponentiation in astronomical mappings finalises with tetration, but any numerical (hyper)-operator wil suffice as I am just looking for a rough estimate.) If the distance 'twixt this CQ Lupi, of which I am sceptical, and its proposed "sun", which is said to be 100x that of ours, is shorter than to that of the distance in light minutes from which properties remain intact, than there is a chance that forms of "life" exist at this planet. One thing to bear at mind however is that if the CQ Lupi is twice the size than Jupiter, than its centre star will be highly ill spheroid and bear an oplateness which is heavily imbalanced, which I know wil be the case as analogising our own suns relationship to our largest planet. I am not certain how this wil affect gravitational relationships, but its orbit wil be irregular on account of a warping of its centripaetal force, upon which an orbit is contingent, and thus chances of life would become an ailed liklihood.

Death and the Sun
Monday, April 4th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Our Sun is an old star; I believe its age is estimated at approximately 4.7 billion years.

However, CQ Lupi is "only" a million years old, a mere infant. The method for determining the age of a star is by measuring the strength and type of the radiation it emits. In this case, the star is so young it is not even fully formed yet.

And as far as I understand, the age of a solar system is the same as the age of a star; since planets and moons are basically leftover scraps from when a star is born. A star starts out as a cloud of cosmic dust that slowly begins to whirl and condensate, and even the part of the cloud that don't end up inside the star also condensate into planets because of their gravitational pull towards each other.

Finally, there is no chance whatsoever that life as we know exists on this planet. It is too large, too hot and mostly consists of gas.

Source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050401_first_extrasolarplanet_pic.html

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, 01:30 AM
When it rains it pours:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa007&articleID=00000F5B-960C-1240-91DE83414B7FFE87

Shaun
Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, 05:40 AM
I don't know if it has been brought up, but the Atlas of the Universe is a very informative site on the matter:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/index.html

Erlingr Hįrbaršarson
Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, 03:54 PM
When it rains it pours:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa007&articleID=00000F5B-960C-1240-91DE83414B7FFE87

"All of these [stars] were initially detected using indirect methods, such as analyzing the effect they have on their star's position."
That is just amasing. The maths involved must be labrynthine and variegated to say the least. Uranologists are to be admired. :book2:

"Now a team led by Drake Deming at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has measured light from the planet known as HD 209458b..."
Why is it that only our planets have "names" whilst every planet outside of our system is called some thing heartlessly numerical as e.g. HD 209458b?

:sofa0000:

What would be wrong under naming it Espen, Johan or Olli for instance?

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, 04:01 PM
"Now a team led by Drake Deming at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has measured light from the planet known as HD 209458b..."
Why is it that only our planets have "names" whilst every planet outside of our system is called some thing heartlessly numerical as e.g. HD 209458b?

:sofa0000:

What would be wrong under naming it Espen, Johan or Olli for instance?

I think the main reason is that there are just so many of them. Whenever a new celestial object is discovered, it is just classified with a code for later reference. Whenever some planet, star or other object becomes the object of further study, it is usually given a more appropriate name.