From A University of California Santa Barbara press release: International Team of Scientists Reports Discovery of a New Planet
(Santa Barbara, Calif.) –– An international team of scientists, including several who are affiliated with UC Santa Barbara, has discovered a new planet the size of Jupiter. The finding is published in the March 18 issue of the journal Nature.
The planet, called CoRoT-9b, was discovered by using the CoRoT space telescope satellite, operated by the French space agency, The Centre National d’Études Spatiales, or CNES. The newly discovered planet orbits a star similar to our sun and is located in the constellation Serpens Cauda, at a distance of 1500 light-years from Earth.
The European-led discovery involved 60 astronomers worldwide. The team included UCSB postdoctoral fellow Avi Shporer, who also works with the UCSB-affiliated Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network (LCOGT), based in Goleta, California. Three more LCOGT scientists –– Tim Lister, Rachel Street, and Marton Hidas –– also contributed.
“CoRoT-9b is the first transiting extrasolar planet that is definitely similar to a planet in our solar system, namely Jupiter,” said Shporer. “What is special about this planet is that it transits a star, and it is a temperate planet. It has great potential for future studies concerning its physical characteristics and atmosphere.” The planet is mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but may contain up to 20 Earth masses of heavier elements including rock and water under high pressure. It thus appears to be very similar to the solar system’s giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn.
A transit occurs when a celestial body passes in front of its host star and blocks some of the star’s light. This type of eclipse causes a small drop in the apparent brightness of the star and enables the planet’s mass, diameter, density, and temperature to be deduced. CoRoT-9b takes 95 Earth days to orbit its star. This is about 10 times longer than that of any planet previously discovered by the transit method.
The CoRoT satellite identified the planet after 150 days of continuous observation in the summer of 2008. The discovery of the planet was verified by ground-based telescopes. Those include the two-meter Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Faulkes Telescope North (FTN), located on Mt. Haleakala on the Hawaiian island of Maui. “Since a transit occurs only once every 95 days, FTN was at the right place at the right time to observe the transit in September 2009, thereby confirming the CoRoT detection,” said Shporer.
He explained that while temperate gas giants are so far the largest known group of planets, CoRoT-9b is the first transiting planet of this kind. The discovery will lead to a better understanding of such commonly occurring planets and open up a new field of research on the atmospheres of moderate and low temperature planets.
Shporer notes that the study of planets outside our solar system is rapidly progressing. “Only 25 years ago no extrasolar planets were known, and today we know of more than 400,” he said. “Undoubtedly, many more exciting discoveries await in the future.”
The CoRoT space telescope satellite is named for “convection, rotation, and transits.” France, Austria, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Brazil, and the European Space Agency (ESA) contributed to the telescope. It was specifically designed to detect transiting exoplanets and carry out seismological studies of stars. Its results are supplemented by observations from several ground-based telescopes, including the IAC-80 Teide Observatory, Canary Islands, Spain; the Canada France Hawaii Telescope, Hawaii; the Isaac Newton Telescope, Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, Canary Islands, Spain; the Swiss Euler telescope, Chile; the Faulkes Telescope North, Hawaii, part of the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network; and, the ESO 3.6m telescope, Chile.
The Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network is constructing a network of telescopes for monitoring variable stars and explosions on the sky. In a long-term collaboration with UC Santa Barbara, LCOGT has already constructed the Byrne Observatory at UC’s Sedgwick Reserve and supports collaborative research on extrasolar planets, transients, and supernovae with UCSB scientists.
Avi Shporer received his B.A. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and his M.S. and Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. He recently began a three-year postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Physics at UCSB, and is affiliated with the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network.
###
Dr Svalgaard, I know you are a man of great knowledge and understanding. If you could kindly step out of that box of understanding for an hour and have a listen to Wallace Thornhill, I think this information will free you about how much of what we have been told and taught about the cosmos, is still very much in question:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/03mar/RIR-100311.php
Electric Universe rocks!
Suranda
“We don’t need the Genesis mission for this. Our other spacecraft make a mass-spectrometer measurement.”
Probably just as you say. However, I think NASA’s heart was in the right place and I wish they would make another go at it, just in case there are some surprises.
They just wanted to find what the building blocks of the early solar system were (hence the name “Genesis”); just a little trouble making a parachute deploy in the last moments.
No sardonic remarks from me. 🙂
Just spent 15 minutes of quality geezer-time looking up the definition of “moby”.
In this case, “moby” refers to the left-wing recording artist who urged his fans and fellow-travelers to mount false-flag operations on the Internet — to claim to be conservative and then either to say truly stupid things to discredit the conservative cause or to say things like “I’m a lifelong Republican, but even I have to admit that Bush is guilty of war crimes!” His name has become an eponym for this style of political sabotage.
Zeke the Sneak (13:37:28) :
I think NASA’s heart was in the right place and I wish they would make another go at it,
Money !
Suranda (12:58:31) :
free you about how much of what we have been told and taught about the cosmos
Unfortunately I’m one of those who find out, tell, and teach about the cosmos and, so I might be slightly biased towards how it actually works…
Smoking Frog @ur momisugly 22:24:41
It’s a St. Patrick’s Day Miracle, and can be attested directly to the intercession of the Saint. I was wrong about the conversion; he was Christian before his kidnapping.
================
Leif, you miss my point. I agree that there is a planet there and that using the measurements we can be certain of from our single point in the universe approximately how big it is and what distance it is from its star. We can also be approximately certain of its distance from Earth.
We cannot honestly claim to know the geological and atmospheric properties of this planet. ” The planet is mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but may contain up to 20 Earth masses of heavier elements including rock and water under high pressure. It thus appears to be very similar to the solar system’s giant planets, Jupiter and Saturn.”
My point is this is a guess.
Leif Svalgaard (21:16:42) :
Grumbles (21:03:47) :
Too many assumptions.
We don’t think so. From its size we deduce that cannot be a wholly rocky planet, because we know the chemical composition of its star and there is not enough ‘heavy’ materials [as rocks are made of] to have formed a fully rocky planet of that size, so the planet must be Jupiter-like [i.e. most of it must be Hydrogen and Helium of which there are plenty] and then from known properties of gas planets we can infer the other stuff. This is not rocket science.
If the exoplanet turns out to have an orbit opposite the rotation of the star, then they will say, “It was captured.” Then you cannot assume that you know anything about the composition of the planet, because Kant’s 260yo Nebular Hypothesis will not apply.
JimAsh (12:54:46) :
You are aware that Saturn’s moon, Titan, has oceans of Natural Gas, right ?
Too bad that, far as I know, we have yet to find oceans of oxygen to go with it.
It would make for an interesting science experiment to lob asteroids made primarily of frozen oxygen at Titan. Ever see a moon catch fire?
Of course then you’ll be making evil CO2, which will undoubtedly lead to runaway lunar warming and cause all those hydrocarbons to vaporize…
Grumbles (21:03:08) :
My point is this is a guess.
If I see a man walking down the street, I infer from my knowledge of humans generally that he has a heart and a brain, not three hearts and no brain. My inference is not a ‘guess’. It is a very educated inference that I’ll put good money on [you take a wager that I’m wrong?].
Zeke the Sneak (21:50:15) :
If the exoplanet turns out to have an orbit opposite the rotation of the star, then they will say, “It was captured.”
No such planet has ever been found, so we’ll not have the chance to say that. Don’t assume that the astronomers are morons. [no such astronomer has ever been found 😉 ]
Zeke the Sneak wrote at 21:50:15:
If the exoplanet turns out to have an orbit opposite the rotation of the star, then they will say, “It was captured.” Then you cannot assume that you know anything about the composition of the planet, because Kant’s 260yo Nebular Hypothesis will not apply.
Zeke, didn’t anybody ever tell you that you really shouldn’t lead with your chin?
Planets in retrograde orbits have already been discovered, and furthermore … they were predicted to occur under current theories of planetary system formation. No, the astronomers didn’t say “It was captured.”
Here:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/08/12/biggest-exoplanet-yet-orbits-the-wrong-way/
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/16/second-exoplanet-with-retrograde-orbit-discovered/
Original sources:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1553
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1673
kadaka (22:39:21) :
JimAsh (12:54:46) :
You are aware that Saturn’s moon, Titan, has oceans of Natural Gas, right ?
Too bad that, far as I know, we have yet to find oceans of oxygen to go with it.
Titan happens to have a lot of ice, so there is your oxygen. Anyway most moons in our solarsystem are partially made up of ice. In fact if a interstellar traveling civilization would visit us for our water, methane and hydrogen than they would be quite happy with what they can find in the outer solarsystem. No need to visit those carbon-based life forms on that third rock from the sun unless you see them as a potential opponent in wich case introducing a few alien germs would do the trick.
On an other note, it pleases me that astronomers found an Exoplanet using of the shelf techonology. eight 16 inch telescopes fitted with a CCD combined where enough to find a exoplanet orbiting a star some 40 light years away.
They found a super-earth orbiting GJ 1241. The mass of this planet is about 6.5 times earth and its surface temperature should be around 400 degrees Fahrenheit, still to hot for life as we know it.
With this hunting exoplanets comes into the realm of the amateur astronomers, people who mean a lot to the professionals.
Robert (03:35:44) :
Titan happens to have a lot of ice, so there is your oxygen. (…)
Do I really have to point out to you that water ice represents “consumed oxygen” which is unsuitable for a combustion reaction with the hydrocarbons, in its liquid and gaseous phases of course? 😎
Leif Svalgaard (01:32:22) :
Grumbles (21:03:08) :
My point is this is a guess.
If I see a man walking down the street, I infer from my knowledge of humans generally that he has a heart and a brain, not three hearts and no brain. My inference is not a ‘guess’. It is a very educated inference that I’ll put good money on [you take a wager that I’m wrong?].
Ridiculous. Are you comparing our knowledge of the human body to our knowledge of star composition. Tests can be done on the human body and we know a lot about it. It is fine if you want to believe that given the evidence scientists can accurately claim the makeup of this planet, but its drawing a really long bow.
Well now things are getting interesting!
In the news releases and abstracts you generously hunted down and provided, there isn’t anything that can be properly called a “prediction” which is verified by the observation of retrograde orbits:
a. WASP-17: “As a likely a victim of planetary billiards, astronomers say this unusual planet casts new light on how planetary systems form and evolve.”
b.“HAT-P-7b: “Multiple planets could have formed in an unstable configuration around the star, and their proximity to each other could have caused a rather chaotic series of gravitational billiards to boot HAT-P-7b into its current orbit. Another explanation is the presence of a third object in the system, such as another massive planet or companion star, that is tilting the orbit of HAT-P-7b due to what’s known as the Kozai effect.”
In fact, what we are looking at are orbits that are precluded by the 260 yo, pre-space age Nebular Hypothesis:
The odd orbit of HAT-P-7b could have been caused by a number of different factors, and theorists that model the formation of exoplanetary systems will not have to “go back to the drawing boards”. The general consensus is that planets form out of a large disk of material orbiting the star, and thus all orbit in the same direction as the disk out of which they formed.
Therefore, adjustments are being made to the theory right in front of your eyes. Put that another way, if you, for example 60 years ago, proposed that there could have been a chaotic movement of planets within our own solar system, you would have been labeled an absolute crank.
So when they say they “don’t have to go back to the drawing board” in planet formation theory, I don’t catagorize that as a verified prediction. Rather, methinks they protest a little too much! 🙂
Grumbles (08:55:51) :
the human body and we know a lot about it.
We know a lot about solar and stellar composition too. These things are not ‘guesses’ or ‘assumptions’, but inferences drawn from knowledge of one object about that of another that is similar, backed up by actual measurements. You know nothing at all about my human body [whether I have an appendix, or two hearts, or no brain]. You infer my likely composition from your detailed knowledge of some cadaver on a stone slab.
One last time: the properties inferred for that planet are very likely correct and it is very feasible to infer those and they are not guesses based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
Now there are several hypothesis put forward for the odd orbits of these planets. That’s good. The fact that capture was not mentioned is rather a glaring omission, in my opinion, since this is always one of the working theories for retrograde moons in our own solar system.
It is even acceptable to say that our own moon was captured.
My original intent was to point out that there certainly are a lot of assumptions behind the claim to know the composition of this exoplanet.
Zeke the Sneak (10:21:17) :
since this is always one of the working theories for retrograde moons in our own solar system.
It works for the moons because the bodies in the solar system are all rather close to each other compared to the distances between the stars, the ratio is something like 1:100,000 so its is relatively easy to capture something within the system compare with capturing something from another system with is 100,000 times as far away. So the ‘capture’ is not a reasonable assumption.
Zeke the Sneak wrote at 10:13:09:
In the news releases and abstracts you generously hunted down and provided, there isn’t anything that can be properly called a “prediction” which is verified by the observation of retrograde orbits […]
Zeke, don’t depend on a dumbed-down informal writeup for your information and then criticize the science — that’s like reading the “Classic Comics” version of War and Peace and then complaining that Tolstoy’s colors weren’t realistic.
The links that I gave to the source publications not only included the abstracts, they also prominently featured “click here” downloads of the full papers as PostScript and PDF documents.
For example …
In fact, what we are looking at are orbits that are precluded by the 260 yo, pre-space age Nebular Hypothesis:
You like to kick down strawmen, don’t you? They are “precluded by the 260 yo, pre-space age Nebular Hypothesis” in the same way that biological evolution is “precluded” because Charles Darwin didn’t know anything about genes, and the same way that Wegener’s original theory of continental drift is “precluded” by observations of plate tectonics, and the same way that Newton’s theory of gravitation is “precluded” by Special and General Relativity. Modern theories to explain the phenomena are advancements over the originals because they take new information into account.
The odd orbit of HAT-P-7b could have been caused by a number of different factors, and theorists that model the formation of exoplanetary systems will not have to “go back to the drawing boards”. The general consensus is that planets form out of a large disk of material orbiting the star, and thus all orbit in the same direction as the disk out of which they formed.
Roughly true … that’s the Classic Comics version. But your “thus” is a simplification that ignores some uncommon, but predicted exceptions.
Therefore, adjustments are being made to the theory right in front of your eyes.
Yes! That’s called Science!
Put that another way, if you, for example 60 years ago, proposed that there could have been a chaotic movement of planets within our own solar system, you would have been labeled an absolute crank.
Actually, there were speculations in the 1950s that proposed exactly that, and there were papers published in the 1970s (Dole, Stephen H., “Computer Simulation of the Formation of Planetary Systems,” Icarus, vol 13, pp 494-508, 1970; Isaacman, Richard. and Sagan, Carl, “Computer Simulation of Planetary Accretion Dynamics: Sensitivity to Initial Conditions,” Icarus, vol 31, p 510, 1977) about computer simulations of the “nebular hypothesis” in which this chaotic movement of planets explicitly took place. I also recall an article in Scientific American back in the late ’70s or early ’80s that talked about this; sorry, but I don’t have the reference.
By the way, Sagan’s modeling also predicted massive gas giant planets in close orbits for some systems, based on variations in the initial conditions of the nebula. He called these “pathological” cases, because back then we knew of exactly one planetary system — our own — and we had no idea whether “hot Jupiters” actually occurred in the real universe or were due to unrealistic assumptions in the models.
So when they say they “don’t have to go back to the drawing board” in planet formation theory, I don’t catagorize that as a verified prediction. Rather, methinks they protest a little too much! 🙂
No, it means that when someone points out a new implication of a theory and then the observations verify that prediction — as was noted in those technical papers that you didn’t read — then that helps substantiate the theory.
Wanna have some fun? Some of those computer programs for simulating planetary system formation that I mentioned are available on the Web. I don’t know whether Dole’s original ACRETE program (in FORTRAN) is still available, but plenty of people have been playing around with modeling the process in the past forty years and there are now versions that run on personal computers.
One such is StarGen, which not only builds “moderately believable” planetary systems (based on plausible assumptions) but also describes the characteristics of the individual planets (again, based on what the author considers plausible assumptions). StarGen runs on Macs and Unix systems. Note: I don’t know for sure whether StarGen uses the same model for accretion and gravitational interaction of protoplanets that Dole, Sagan, and the others originally used, so I don’t know whether you’ll get planets swapping orbits or being ejected from the system with this program. Also, these models are sensitive to initial conditions and use Monte Carlo simulation methods, so you shouldn’t get the same system twice. But it’s fun to see what results you get — here are some of the author’s results. (I don’t see any “hot Jupiters” among the examples, so I suspect that his accretion program may be too simplified or his range of initial conditions is too limited.)
Here’s another simulation that runs under Java that claims to be descended from the originals: accrete.
WARNING: No warranties expressed or implied. These simulations are based on incomplete physics and do not necessarily reflect reality. Do not begin an expedition to another star system based on the predictions of these models without verifying the results from observations. Similarly, do not inflict massive social and economic changes on planetary populations based on unverified results from AGW models that use incomplete physics or inaccurate assumptions.
Mike G in Corvallis (15:01:25) :
“we discovered the first evidence of a retrograde orbit of HAT-P-7b.”
Mike, thanks for that tidbit. I didn’t know that. One learns a little bit every day here on WUWT. Wish that others would too.
Mike G in Corvallis (15:01:25) :
Zeke, don’t depend on a dumbed-down informal writeup for your information and then criticize the science — that’s like reading the “Classic Comics” version of War and Peace and then complaining that Tolstoy’s colors weren’t realistic.
That is a fascinating point you raise. I personally do try to read the technical papers, however, I often hit a paywall, a problem with impenatrable jargon, or I simply don’t have enough hours in a day to devote to the subjects that I care about.
There is, however I would argue, very great value in following the popular presentations of science, for two reasons:
One, because these present the common denominator and agreed basic analysis, while controversy may rage behind the scenes between the experts in the field.
Two, because these popular presentations are what best represent what is being taught in the classrooms and juvenile science books. Each expert may come and move the target around quite a bit, but I like to keep apprised of what is going on in the education system.
So I appreciate your War and Peace point, but as a voter and a taxpayer, I watch and vote to the best of my ability despite the fact that I am not a poli sci or economics major; and I regard with interest the pronouncements of these tax funded astrophysical theoriticians. As do you.
Grumbles wrote at 08:55:51:
Ridiculous. Are you comparing our knowledge of the human body to our knowledge of star composition. Tests can be done on the human body and we know a lot about it. It is fine if you want to believe that given the evidence scientists can accurately claim the makeup of this planet, but its drawing a really long bow.
In the case of transiting planets, we can tell the diameter of the planet based on how much of its star’s light it blocks, and we can determine the mass based on the star’s radial velocity changes and the geometry of the orbit. You can figure out the density from the volume and the mass using simple arithmetic. Almost all of these planets turn out to be less dense than Jupiter. For example, HAT-P-7b is about 1.4 times as wide and 1.8 times as massive as Jupiter — do the math. We strongly suspect the low densities are the result of tidal heating; we know that at least some of these planets are quite warm because we can measure their temperatures from spectroscopic observations, and we’d expect them to be hot anyway because they’re so close to their stars.
So let’s look at WASP-17b, the least-dense planet currently known. The mass is 0.49 the mass of Jupiter (+-0.06 MJ), the orbital radius is 0.051 AU (+−0.002 AU), the orbital period is 3.7354417 days (+−0.0000073 days, and yes we do know it that accurately), and the radius of the planet is 1.74 times that of Jupiter (+−0.26). Do the math and you get a density of only 6-14 percent that of Jupiter.
So what’s the planet made of? It’s reasonable to start with the assumption that it’s made of the same stuff as Jupiter — mainly hydrogen and helium. The assumption is strengthened when you ask the question, “Could it be made of something else, instead?” Well, there aren’t very many elements in the periodic table, and darned few of them as light as hydrogen and helium. Got any suggestions?
The problem is to figure out why the planet’s density is as low as it is … Oh, yeah! It’s hot! What’s less dense than cold hydrogen and helium? Hot hydrogen and helium!
Now, all of this reasoning could be invalidated if the planet is made of unobtainium or bolonium or some other element that doesn’t occur in our periodic table … but we don’t know of any other periodic tables, do we? And it could be wrong if the basic laws of physics elsewhere in the galaxy are massively different from physics here on Earth, but I’m not aware of any evidence for that. Oh, and the basic axioms of mathematics and geometry might be different for that planet, too. Could be! Chickens could have lips, too.
Instead of the Classic Comics explanation, here’s an example of some real rocket surgery. Tell me where you disagree with the reasoning, and show your work:
The determination of planetary structure in tidally relaxed inclined systems.
Mike G in Corvallis (15:01:25) :
The existence of such planets have been indeed predicted in some recent planetary migration models
Terrific! As Dr. Jewitt in Hawaii says, “Planetary migration is an idea whose time has come.”
Wait. Are there any others you can think of, any others, who proposed that planets have recently moved from their orbits? Specifically Venus, which has and does display cometary properties?
Leif Svalgaard (14:22:10) :
Zeke the Sneak (10:21:17) :
since this is always one of the working theories for retrograde moons in our own solar system.
It works for the moons because the bodies in the solar system are all rather close to each other compared to the distances between the stars, the ratio is something like 1:100,000 so its is relatively easy to capture something within the system compare with capturing something from another system with is 100,000 times as far away. So the ‘capture’ is not a reasonable assumption.
“What about the fact that gravitational capture is highly unlikely? That’s true. But…each star will have a plasma sheath that limits the weak electric field between the star and the sheath. It is the Sun’s heliosphere…the heliosphere is about 200 AU across. That’s a big target.” Wal Thornhill
So wrt capture, it must be remembered that Jupiter’s magnetic field is the largest object in the Solar System, and the Sun’s heliosphere is 200AU across, so it is not such an astronomically unlikely event to have an interaction between a Super Jupiter (a brown dwarf) and a main sequence star.
Zeke the Sneak (17:25:23) :
It is the Sun’s heliosphere…the heliosphere is about 200 AU across. That’s a big target.” Wal Thornhill
1st: The electric stuff is the shearest nonsense. And planets are not electric so can’t capture anything that way.
2nd: 200 AU is nothing when the nearest star is typically of the order of a million AU away.