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.
###
Mike G in Corvallis (16:16:45) :
(…)
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? (…)
From El Reg, March 5 2010:
Probably of course completely unrelated, just something interesting I came across that I kept forgetting to mention here. But I still find it interesting to wonder how many celestial objects could be something other than “normal” matter.
Zeke the Sneak wrote at 16:28:15:
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?
Zeke, you claimed that “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.”
I just gave several examples of astronomers who proposed that planetary orbits can change as planets gravitationally interact with one another and who weren’t labeled as cranks. Now you’re moving the goalposts to ask for more?
You’re changing the question to be about people who claim that planets in the solar system have recently moved from their orbits? There still aren’t any astronomers tht I’m aware of who believe this — not if you define “recently” to be within the past million years or so.
There used to be a crackpot named Velikovsky who made this claim and who believed in a number of even less plausible things, but … (1) he was a psychiatrist and amateur historian, not an astronomer or any other kind of scientist, (2) his proposed chronology of events in the past ten thousand years of history to support his claims is universally rejected by historians, (3) he picked and chose among myths that supported what he wanted to believe and ignored or rejected those that didn’t support his claims — just as Jones, Briffa, Hansen, Schmidt, and others ignore inconvenient data to support their claims of AGW, (4) some of his supposed history was based on mistranslations of the source works, (5) his physics doesn’t hold up (as the Wikipedia article concisely sums things up, “The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits which do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum”), (6) his specific predictions about the properties of other planets turned out to be profoundly wrong (e.g., Venus is not covered in carbohydrates), (7) studies of ice-cores from Greenland and Antarctica and studies of any number of delicate geological features (sediment deposition, stalactites) refute the idea of any sort of global catastrophe within the past six thousand years, and (8) there’s no reason at all to believe in the existence of any form of “collective amnesia” that prevents human societies from remembering planets caroming around in the sky with enormous electrical discharges between them and Earth.
I haven’t heard anyone say that Velikovsky wasn’t a nice guy, though.
By the way, David Jewitt (who is now at UCLA) can explain the orbital dynamics and consequences of planetary migration very well without invoking the idea of vast electromagnetic forces between planets overcoming gravitational forces and without believing that planets in our solar system have played musical chairs within the past few thousand years.
Still it is interesting to note that 100’s of brown dwarfs have been discovered since the 1980’s, and most within 150 light years away. They are potentially as numerous as stars in our Galaxy.
“The compedium of brown dwarfs now includes objects with photospheric temperatures as low as 625 K and masses as low as 0.01 M of the sun.”
http://web.mit.edu/ajb/www/papers/physicstoday.pdf
This does complicate matters a little I think and there is no justification for being so facile about the origins and properties of the extrasolar planets. There could be quite a lot of overlap with Super Jupiters, as well as electrical capture, and perhaps other explanations for these rediculously tiny orbits (4 days) of gas giants around stars.
kadaka wrote at 19:21:28:
From El Reg, March 5 2010:
<i<Mike G in Corvallis (20:45:26) :
Rather, it seems a racing cert that we’re looking here at an imminent visit from a race of carnivorous dinosaur-men, the superhuman clone hive-legions of some evil genetic queen-empress, infinite polypantheons of dark nega-deities imprisoned for aeons and hungering to feast upon human souls, a parallel-history victorious Nazi globo-Reich or something of that type.
Like Democrats?
Any explanation for the interstellar cloud/magnetic ribbon, according to your scientific dogma, gentlemen? Well electric universe does:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
Electric Sun Verified
“Is it likely that any astonishing new developments are lying in wait for us? Is it possible that the cosmology of 500 years hence will extend as far beyond our present beliefs as our cosmology goes beyond that of Newton?”
—Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe
NASA’s IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne
Zeke the Sneak (20:38:44) :
perhaps other explanations for these ridiculously tiny orbits (4 days) of gas giants around stars.
There is no reason to look for extraneous other explanations when th one we have is perfectly reasonable. And there are stars that orbit each other in 5 minutes.
Leif Svalgaard (08:40:52) :
There is no reason to look for extraneous other explanations when th one we have is perfectly reasonable. And there are stars that orbit each other in 5 minutes.
Reality is stranger than we realize. Really.
kadaka (10:35:09) :
“And there are stars that orbit each other in 5 minutes.”
Reality is stranger than we realize. Really.
On the other hand, we know and understand why they do this. The Universe is rich in marvels. The astounding thing is our ability to observe, learn about, and understand what we see.
Leif Svalgaard (11:27:51) :
On the other hand, we know and understand why they do this.
Ah-ah! Don’t fall into the climatology trap, you’re better than that. We do not know and understand anything, in nothing like absolute terms. We use the best theories that provide the best explanations for the best data we have, nothing more. We stay open to the possibility that better data may disprove those theories, and await better theories that provide better explanations, nothing less. That is the proper scientific mindset.
And by those best theories… Wow, five minutes. Seems unlikely you’d get planets to form with those tidal forces.
kadaka (12:34:33) :
We do not know and understand anything, in nothing like absolute terms.
I do. Except I don’t understand what ‘absolute terms’ means.
We stay open to the possibility that better data may disprove those theories
We have learned that the Earth is round, so don’t stay open to the possibility that it may not be.
And by those best theories… Wow, five minutes.
Not theory, but observation.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (13:08:45)
You expect me to believe you don’t know the difference between absolute and relative?
BTW, you look at an object, you see it is red. Which is the current theory? Does it look red because it absorbs the other light spectrum colors, or because it absorbs all the colors and emits red? Which theory fits the available data best?
You do a spectral analysis, examine the lines, you know the object is red and exactly what shade it is. Then you examine it under a microscope. You find many dots of differing colors, none of which exactly match the spectral profile you had earlier observed. You now have better data. Your original observations are still valid, it still looks red. But do you still say you know it is red and exactly what shade?
We have learned that the Earth is round, so don’t stay open to the possibility that it may not be.
As wide open as that statement is, it is hard to disprove. “Round” covers a lot of territory. Circular or elliptical? Or something else? It’s an approximation anyway, up close you see many features that are not contributing to roundness. Oh, and stay open to the possibility that someday the Earth will cease being round. It happens.
Not theory, but observation.
You need to read better, or just not jump to criticism so fast. “Five minutes” is repeating the observation, “theories” concerned planet formation possibilities.
kadaka (15:07:05) :
You expect me to believe you don’t know the difference between absolute and relative?
In this context, yes. As they are not appropriate for this.
Whoa, man! You mean that our entire solar system could be, like, one tiny atom in, like, the toenail of some enormous being … and that one tiny atom in, like my toenail could be, like, an entire solar system?! Like, with people on it and stuff? Heavy, man …
Leif Svalgaard (08:40:52) : There is no reason to look for extraneous other explanations when the one we have is perfectly reasonable.
Those academic mind tricks don’t work on me. 🙂
Zeke the Sneak (19:12:31) :
Those academic mind tricks don’t work on me. 🙂
Somebody once said that he was to dumb to be fooled 🙂
More seriously, there is a good principle in science [Occam’s razor] saying that “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” which almost does not need translation [‘entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity’]
Entia non sunt multiplicanda:
See black holes, dark matter, dark energy, gravitational lensing and warping and expanding space.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Sooner or later, scientists are going to realize that wherever we see spin, there’s electricity involved.”
Hilton Ratcliffe, The Virtue of Heresy, pg 228
http://rexcess.extragalactic.info/images/galaxy2.png
Zeke the Sneak (20:00:43) :
“Sooner or later, scientists are going to realize that wherever we see spin, there’s electricity involved.”
Spin has nothing to do with electricity but with the quantization of angular momentum.
Or with just ordinary rotation, which again has nothing to do with electricity. The ‘spin’ deal is the usual straw man trying to connect simple rotation with that of quantum spin of electrons. [to make it sound more ‘scientific’].
So, scientists are not going to realize what you claim, because that is not reality.
Leif Svalgaard (15:53:34) :
In this context, yes. As they are not appropriate for this.
On the contrary, it is very appropriate to not say you know and understand something in an absolute manner when discussing science.
“Steel is hard.” That’s a basic statement in absolute terms, people know it to be true, nothing wrong there. Until we start thinking scientifically, then we have to qualify the statement. The temperature range needs consideration. We need a scale to reference. At room temperature, steel is harder than aluminum, but diamond is harder than steel. To state in absolute terms that you know steel is hard is not scientific.
You can also get into trouble another way. Until recently, diamond was the hardest substance. Or was it? Nope, it was the hardest substance known to man. You cannot make the absolute statement as the limitations of human knowledge must be recognized.
You can say you know the speed of light in a vacuum in absolute terms, because that is a definition. You can say you know 2+2=4 in absolute terms, because that is math, although even then you have the unspoken assumptions that no units are involved and you are using base 10 numbers.
It is best in science to avoid saying we know and understand something in absolute terms, with absolute certainty. We have the best theories that provide the best explanations for the best data we have, nothing more. What we know is what we know right now, our knowledge and understanding are relative. Just as there was someone like you a thousand years ago who claimed to know and understand scientific things with absolute certainty (isn’t there always?), there will very likely be one a thousand years from now. Yet despite the certainty all three of you feel, are you certain all three of you will be in agreement on all the same facts?
kadaka (01:08:56) :
On the contrary, it is very appropriate to not say you know and understand something in an absolute manner when discussing science.
You misunderstand “know/understand” as generally used [at least in science]. It goes without saying that everything we know/understand is within the current framework only and is always subject to refinement. Therefore we don’t need to qualify it all the time.
The concept of ‘absolute terms’ is useless/meaningless in this connection.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (09:57:26)
Oh, I know how we use “know and understand” in science. I also know how the general public interprets our use of those terms, and how the CAGW scientists made sure to use them to convey the notion of absolute rock-hard no-doubt certainty in absolute will-never-change facts. If you want the general public to trust science, you should make it clear that we are talking about what is known and understood at this moment.
You can see what is happening in medicine from doctors conveying a sense of absolute certainty, as the public watches the continuing stream of conflicting reports and advice. We can see what is happening with climate science, and science in general. Let’s not add to the problem, and make clear what the limits of our knowledge actually are.
kadaka (10:35:42) :
Oh, I know how we use “know and understand” in science. I also know how the general public interprets our use of those terms
Then go and educate Joe Public. Here you are just preaching to the choir.
make clear what the limits of our knowledge actually are
Since we don’t know that, we can’t, except for the vacuous statement that this is the best we can do at this time, which should be clear to everybody from the outset. Would we do any worse on purpose [discounting fraudsters and cranks, etc]?
Leif Svalgaard (21:30:56) :Spin has nothing to do with electricity but with the quantization of angular momentum.
3 example of electricity and spin–
1. The Faraday or homopolar motor:
2. Giant Electrical Tornadoes In Space Drive The Northern Lights:
‘Earth-bound tornadoes are puny compared to “space tornadoes,” which span a volume as large as Earth and produce electrical currents exceeding 100,000 amperes, according to new observations by a suite of five NASA space probes.’
3. tornadoes and dust devils are a charged sheath vortex: ‘More than 100,000 volts per yard of natural, so called “static” electricity have been measured in desert dust storms and the mini-tornado-like dust devils.’
How this applies to astronomy, in the Electric Universe, eliminating the need for new entities, such as halos of dark matter:
Understanding is from the Self, knowing is from our recording apparatus.