Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does Famous Exoplanet 'Fomalhaut b' Really Exist?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the to-b-or-not-to-b dept.

Space 40

astroengine writes "The first exoplanet ever to be directly imaged by the Hubble space telescope may not exist. In 2008, the world was in awe of the famous 'Eye of Sauron' image of the star Fomalhaut's dusty ring — plus a slowly moving object that was identified as Fomalhaut b, a gas giant world approximately three times the mass of Jupiter. However, due to a strange orbital misstep detected between 2008 and 2009 photographs, the validity of Fomalhaut b's detection is being questioned, generating some controversy in the exoplanet community."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does Sauron really exist? (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520382)

This article is really making me question everything.

Re:Does Sauron really exist? (2)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520394)

Somone must have destroyed the ring after all. FRODO LIVES!

Re:Does Sauron really exist? (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#37521494)

If Frodo still lives then he must be really really really old by now, which is the best evidence available that no one has destroyed the ring and he still has it.

Slippery slope (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37520428)

First Pluto, now Fomalhaut b. Before long we'll find the Earth isn't really a planet either. (Maybe a gigantic computer run by mice or something).

Re:Slippery slope (2)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520972)

Look, if you really wanted to find out you'd go check out Alpha Centauri. Why you lot won't take a interest in local affairs is beyond me.

Simple solution (1)

eln (21727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520438)

It's really quite simple: We just need to go out there and have a look.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520452)

1...2...3... NOT IT

Re:Simple solution (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520514)

The problem is that the planet (if it is) is moving very slow so they have to wait years between the looks to see the motion.

Re:Simple solution (3, Informative)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520578)

The further out the planet, and the bigger the star all factor into increasing the orbit time, so considering this planet is 3x the size of our biggest one (Jupiter) and that has an orbit of about 11 years (the size of Jupiter has nothing to do w/ orbit mostly), it might be a while before we can confirm this, possibly even a century.

Bigger star = faster orbit (1)

MaizeMan (1076255) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520664)

To maintain a stable orbit at the same distance from a more massive object would mean moving faster, not slower, right?

Re:Bigger star = faster orbit (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520992)

Right. The further out the slower the orbit, and the bigger the star the faster the orbit. If I remember right, the orbital period is proportional to the square of the orbital radius, but inversely linear to the star's mass.

Or, if the sun's mass doubled, our year would be halved if we stayed at the same distance. If our orbital radius doubled, our year would increase in length by four times.

I should probably check that before I post to slashdot, because they'll be cruel if I remember incorrectly. But, eh. I'll take my chances.

Re:Bigger star = faster orbit (2)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 2 years ago | (#37521152)

I should probably check that before I post to slashdot, because they'll be cruel if I remember incorrectly. But, eh. I'll take my chances.

You lose! For exoplanets of mass insignificant compared to its parent star, the relation is
M(star) x Period^2 = Distance^3

So if the mass of the star were doubled, the period would decrease by a factor of 0.7071. And if the orbital radius doubled, the period would increase by a factor of 2.828.

On the plus side, that would alleviate the global warming situation, although to a degree of compensation much to our detriment.

Re:Bigger star = faster orbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37521448)

Ooo! Geek burn! Ouch!

Wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37521864) plan to solve global warming by moving to Mars and throwing everything else in the solar system into the sun?!

Re:Bigger star = faster orbit (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37521072)

The force that would cause that would be gravity I believe, you might be right, but density is what controls the gravity / pull of a star I believe. I was thinking more along the lines of a radius and the increase in circumference from an increase in diameter via the pD formula. I couldn't find definitive answer either way though, I'm assuming they are independent of each other and is based more on the density of the star rather than size.

Re:Bigger star = faster orbit (1)

Lore17 (1318959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37521160)

Gravity is proportional to mass, not density. The density of a star doesn't really matter; if you are a distance away greater than the stars radius you will feel a force as if all the stars mass were concentrated at the center.

Re:Bigger star = faster orbit (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37521244)

Your right, I haven't studied this in too long I should stop talking :)

Re:Simple solution (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520650)

Maybe it's made of neutrinos and moving so fast that it looks like it's not moving fast! wheels on a car moving at 61 revs per second with a 60 frames per second capture.

Re:Simple solution (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#37521786)

I was there just last month. It's a big ugly planet. Hell, they don't even have a Starbucks!

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37526298)

you're clearly lying and I call shenanigans - not have a Starbucks!? As if.

Exoplanet community? (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520640)

It's nice to the ET's have a community on the exoplanet. So it must exist.

Re:Exoplanet community? (1)

johnmorganjr (960148) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520672)

ET's planet?? I thought it belonged to Paul. Now I'm beginning to wonder about everything out there.........

Re:Exoplanet community? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37520918)

No, the walrus was Paul.

Really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37520684)

There is an exoplanet community?

Re:Really? (1)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520752)

Welcome to the 22nd century.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37523892)

Will there be a community of Exoplutoids?

So what's the problem? (3, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520776)

According to TFA, the central problem is that the claimed planet seems to have an orbit which goes into the dusk disk around the star. But if this happens regularly, the disk should have been disrupted. The planet is also much brighter than one would expect for a planet in that position. If this isn't a planet it isn't clear what it is. There does seem to be something there. This could be some sort of artifact of the imaging methods but given the fact that it has been imaged with multiple instruments this seems extremely unlikely. So if this turns out not to be a planet we may be looking at some neat astronomical phenomenon not previously seen. Or it could be a bunch of unusually shiny dust. Hard to tell at this point. This is the sort of thing where the James Webb Telescope could be quite helpful. As of the last update it looks like James Webb is back on. But given how the current Congress acts, it could easily move to being canceled again.

It's almost certainly not imaginary. (5, Insightful)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520858)

This article seems to be about a grudge match between Paul Kalas, who was the lead in the discovery of this planet and Ray Jayawardhana, another astronomer who seems to want to be the first to have directly imaged an exoplanet. Since Kalas came first, Jayawardhana's only option seems to be to discredit the earlier discovery. One of his arguments is that Fomalhaut B wasn't really directly imaged since it probably has rings (accounting for its brightness) and so the rings were what was imaged and not the planet. The chief argument seems to be that the third picture taken of it doesn't match the expected orbit from the previous 2 pictures. The previous 2 pictures, however, were taken with an instrument that broke before the third picture was taken, so the accuracy of the third picture is in doubt. In any case, no-one seems to be doubting that it's something really, really big, but nowhere near big enough to be a star, that's been imaged in another star system. So, if it's not an exoplanet, it's still something extraordinary.

Re:It's almost certainly not imaginary. (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | more than 2 years ago | (#37524344)

Exactly right. To quote TFA:

Kalas said that, to be scrupulously fair, Schneider should also mention that there are doubts associated with 1RXJ1609, a planet imaged directly at infrared wavelengths that Jayawardhana co-discovered and announced in 2008

Kalas notes that he coined the term 'planet mania' in a 1998 article in Science, in which he criticized Jayawardhana for making inflated claims about observing planets

[Christian] Marois says it's far more likely that Kalas is adjusting his analysis to the different instrument on Hubble, and that the original orbit will hold. If anything, he says, the fact that Kalas spotted Fomalhuat b at all in 2010 is "another confirmation that this thing is real".

Jean Schneider, an astronomer at the Paris Observatory who maintains the database, says that Fomalhaut b will remain on the list.

So Jayawardhana is the only guy who seems to be raising these 'doubts'?

yes you did, no YOU did... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37520890)

For now, it reads like just a pissing contest.

That's no planet. (1, Funny)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#37520930)

That's no planet. It's a space station.

Re:That's no planet. (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#37521276)

Damn you! You stole my joke. And I thought it was so original. /me shakes tiny fist in impotent fury

Re:That's no planet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37529760)

There is nothing original about that joke anymore; memes should have automatic expiration dates.

Light detected but not from a planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37521050)

Even in the original paper presenting the discovery the light detected was likely not that from a planet itself. Light was too bright and the wrong color. Infrared light (at thermal temperatures) was not detected. Instead reflected visible light, the same color as the star was detected. There are a number of speculations on what is emitting the light, e.g., a disk, like around Saturn but larger --- not ridiculous given the latest late stage circumJovian disk models, a dust cloud of captured comets; Wyatt and Kennedy). Note the detected object was not in the location as predicted previous to discovery by Quillen (likely also not happy with Kalas et al as the prediction was not mentioned by the discovers). Quillen predicted an object too faint to have been detected (and lower mass than claimed). Fomalhaut B has not been confirmed by any other telescope or instrument -- unlike the HR8799 planets which have been confirmed by multiple other studies and were detected in the infrared.

Re:Light detected but not from a planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37522864)

So... if it sounds like light reflected from cold bodies, like a planetary ring/disk, will James Webb be able to spot the planet directly, no questions asked? If not, is there any chance that James Webb could image the shadow of the planet on the disk (much bigger than the planet in one axis)?

Yeah, I know it doesn't help with the "first to image a planet", which is understandably a huge thing for real scientists with real egos to want/want-not-to-be-cheated-out-of, but not being directly involved, I'm taking more of an objective "what _can_ we see" approach.

Re:Light detected but not from a planet (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37523012)

Launch Laser

Mote in God's Eye.

Aww crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37521870)

I had plans to retire there, I even copied Elon Musk's plans for his Mars bungalow. Now I has a sad, I have to keep living on this mud ball? All the other planets in the universe are much, much better than this rock. Shucks.

"I Spy With My image-Conjuring Telescope Eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37522058)

Planetoidinal Artifact Serpentus Nebulus.

It is in the Felinae Schroedinger System

In the Elephantus Pinki Cloud

In the Deleriomo Tremendouso Galaxy...

Where the hell did we get the glass for this lense, anyway?"

Normal for a young science (1)

Livius (318358) | more than 2 years ago | (#37522468)

Given the difficulties in merely detecting, much less observing, exoplanets, and the fact that we haven't been doing this for very long and the technologies are new, the only surprise that there aren't more undecided cases like this.

What is the article saying? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37524698)

According to Jayawardhana, this deviation may be the final proof that kicks Fomalhaut b's existence into touch.

Kicks into what? What is this supposed to mean? Does this support the planet exists or not support its existence? No I'm not going to go looking for the meaning of some crazy idiom--I could not care less to be frank.

Bloody journalists. I swear the reliance of democratic society on these people verges on lunacy.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>