rfmcdonald: (Default)

  • Centauri Dreams takes a look at Pluto.

  • The Dragon's Tales links to a paper suggesting that the "young faint sun paradox" can be explained by high but not very high levels of carbon dioxide and methane on the early Earth.

  • Eastern Approaches argues that Poland isn't going to become the Saudi Arabia os shale gas any time soon.

  • Far Outliers takes a look at overlooked interracial fluidity and family in the American South.

  • Inkless Wells' Paul Wells, writing at MacLean's, wants greater press access to the Lac-Mégantic catastrophe.

  • Language Log takes a look at the failure of artificial intelligence as evidenced by the nonsensical conversations of a pair of Siri bots.

  • The Planetary Society Blog has a guest writer suggesting that even under NASA's budget strictures, a Uranus probe could be possible.

  • Noel Maurer at The Power and they Money makes the case that arming the Syrian rebels shouldn't be done, in that the outcomes produced by non-supply--a weakened regime or a weakened transition--are less threatening to American interests.

  • Towleroad links to a paper suggesting that homophobia is associated with fear of unwanted sexual advances.

  • Window on Eurasia quotes a Russian writer who argues that, if the Soviet Union had survived, immigration to Russia would have been substantially heavier and more politically controversial.

rfmcdonald: (Default)
Pluto, second-largest dwarf planet in Sol's planetary system and prototype of the plutoids (trans-Neptunian dwarf planets), is a rejected planet. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. The news of the demotion didn't move me particularly, even though I remember from Grade 1 or 2 listening to one of those books to be read along with an audiocassette and hearing the thin methanogenic winds when I turned to that page with its illustration of Pluto's bleak eternal night. That Pluto was ever identified as a planet alongside the terrestrial worlds of the inner solar system and the gas giants of the outer system (middle?) seems to have been an accident, product of a lack of knowledge of what was out there in the Kuiper belt and Lowell's fortuitous discovery. By the 1970s, as Duncan Lunan noted in his New Worlds for Old, justifying Pluto as a planet took some rather spectacular intellectual leaps.

Pluto was discovered in 1930, after its existence had been predicted (like Neptune's in the 19th century) by analysis of the observed perturbations experienced by Uranus. Lowell predicted that "planet P" would lie 6,400 million kilometres from the Sun and have six times the mass of the Earth; Pluto's mean distance from the Sun is 5,866,000,000 km, but, with the supposed mass, even a 5,760km diameter would give it fifty times the density of water and a surface gravity of 17g!

No ordinary material known to science could give Pluto so high a density. A core of "condensed matter"--nuclei stripped of their electrons and packed together, in white dwarf stars--might provide a solution, but could it be contained against electrostatic repulsion, by a total mass only six times that of the Earth's? There is no evidence that even Jupiter contains condensed matter; Pioneer 10 data indicate the contrary, that density increases smoothly to the centre (204-205).


There's dissenters. Alan Boyle writes at Wired Science, excerpted from his book, that the current definition of a planet as a body that's round on account of its own gravity and has cleared its orbit of other material isn't popular with some Pluto-as-planet proponents.

As a rule of thumb, if it’s big enough to crush itself into a round shape due to self-gravity, it’s big enough to be a planet. If it’s not big enough to get round, it’s a failed planet, taking on the potato or peanut shape normally associated with asteroids or comets. “These objects that we call planets have shaped themselves into spheres,” said Alan Stern, the planetary scientist who worked for seventeen years to get a probe sent to Pluto.

The significance of the shape isn’t merely that a round object makes for a pretty, planetlike picture. Rather, the important thing is that such a degree of self-gravity makes it possible for a planet to have a layered composition, an active geology, perhaps even volcanic activity beneath the surface, or an atmosphere above. “It’s about the physics,” Stern said.

Stern likes to talk of a Star Trek test for planethood: “The Starship Enterprise shows up at a given body, they turn on the cameras on the bridge and they see it. Captain Kirk and Spock could look at it and they could say, ‘That’s a star, that’s a planet, that’s a comet.’ They could tell the difference.”

Roundness would provide an instant way for Mr. Spock to tell. In contrast, Stern said, having to determine whether the round thing was one object among others at the same orbital distance would force Spock to put Kirk’s question on hold: “We have to make a complete census of the solar system, feed that into a computer, and do numerical integrations to determine which objects have cleared their zone.”


Using Star Trek, it should be noted, might not be the best of examples, especially given the intense politicization surrounding the issue. Regardless, a compromise definition that would hve extended the realm of planet didn't come off: "Objects at least 800 kilometers wide with masses of at least 5 x 10 20 kilograms, or about 4 percent of Pluto’s mass, would be brought into the planet fold, with borderline cases decided as further observations became available. That would put Pluto as well as Xena in the pigeonhole for planets, along with the eight bigger planets and smaller Ceres, the rocky world that was hailed as a planet in 1801 but reclassified as an asteroid decades later."

The issue rise provokes passions, clearly, with everyone fom romantic sentiment to nationalism playing a role. Me, I'm still a bit peeved that my favourite world of Ceres, a body hundreds of kilometres wide that's a sphere on account of its sizable rocky mass, isn't a planet.

In the end, "why bother"? Why isn't the category of "dwarf planet" isn't interesting in and of itself? Does "planet" really matter at all? Others have noted--Neil deGrasse Tyson, to name one example--that the term "planet" isn't very descriptive, grouping small rocky bodies with thinnish atmospheres like Venus and Earth together with vast gas giants. More, even the category of gas giant is being subdivided, with the less massive Uranus and Neptune being classified as "ice giants." An asteroid like Ceres is large enough to have internally differentiated. Can anyone say that moons like Titan and Enceladus and Europa and our own Moon aren't worlds in themselves, with geological processes and internal differentiation and all?

"Asteroid," "moon," "planet"--these terms all seem excessively reductionist, don't they, creating artificial separations and distinctions that really do little to further research and knowledge, if anything the reverse? Generic, non-judgmental "World" suits me fine. Could it suit astronomers? More, could it suit the general public?

Discuss.
rfmcdonald: (Default)
Canadian? Well, at least by a Canada-based team.

The recent discovery of the planet CoRoT-7b, a planet discovered by the European Space Agency's CoRoT space telescope which discovers planets by checking for dips in the luminosity of their parent star caused by the planet's blocking the line of sight between Earth and said star, is hugely impressive. A rocky planet with a diameter almost twice that of Earth and perhaps five times as massive as our homeworld, orbiting a main-sequence yellow-orange dwarf star roughly 490 light years away, this planet is one of the more Earth-like world found, notwithstanding that a year of just 20 Earth-days has almost certainly given the world a surface of lava. This might not be as astonishing as the discovery of a planet with a mass six times that of Jupiter in the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million light years away (yes, you read me correctly), but still, the hunt for extrasolar planets has progressed at a remarkable speed. Soon, using one (or more) of any number of detection methods, astronomers will be able to find worlds similar to Earth or smaller; soon, we'll be able to get some data, at least, on the frequency of life.

All this is momentous. But are the other firsts? There's a few.

When were the first claims to have found extrasolar planets?
  • The first was in the mid-19th century, when various observers observed the binary star 70 Ophiuchi and believed to have found a planet of Jupiter's mass or greater. These claims have been disproved, a pity I suppose since both stars of 70 Ophiuchi are relatively Sun-like and close to Sol. In the middle of the 20th century, astronomer suggested Peter van de Kamp suggested that the dim nearby red dwarf of Barnard's Star had its own system, but these claims have been disproven.


  • When were the first planets roughly of Earth's mass found?
  • These were worlds found in orbit of the pulsar PSR B1257+12, starting with two worlds in 1992 and ending up with three worlds and one dwarf planet by 2007. These worlds, belonging to a selected group of pulsar planets formed around rapidly rotating neutron stars, are confusing. No one knows how they could exist in orbit of stars which recently exploded, since--as Steven Dutch notes--it would take only a day to melt the Earth if our sun blew up. The common explanation is that they formed after the explosion.


  • What, you might ask, was the first discovery of a planet that was confirmed to actually exist?
  • It was the planet Gamma Cephei Ab, a world with a mass approximately 160% that of Jupiter orbiting the orange giant star Gamma Cephei A some 45 light years away. As one observer notes, "[t]he planet, with a mass of at least 1.59 times that of Jupiter, is one of the few known to lie within a double-star system, and orbits the main star Gamma Cephei A with a period of 2.47 years at an average distance of 2.03 Astronomical Units (304 million kilometers, 189 million miles), or 2.03 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun. A modest eccentricity brings the planet as close as 1.62 AU to its parent star and takes it as far as 2.43 AU."


  • When was it first suspected to exist?
  • The initial announcement was made in July 1988.

    Who was it made by?
  • The announcement was made in the paper "A Search for Substellar Companions to Solar-Type Stars", submitted to The Astrophysical Journal by Bruce Campbell, George Walker, and Stephenson Yang, all three working out of British Columbian academic institutions and making use of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory in the British Columbian capital of Victoria.


  • In their 1988 paper, Campbell et al made use of the radial velocity technique to study 16 Sun-like stars, examining to see whether or not an orbiting planet was tugging on its parent star, using a hydrogen fluoride mixture to help "steady" the spectrum of the star so as to measure more precisely. Of all these stars, Gamma Cephei A returned the strongest signal of a planet. Alas, these claims weren't very widely publicized.

    To be fair, there was some uncertainty. In the 1992 paper by Walker et al. "Gamma Cephei - Rotation or Planetary Companion?", the claim was retracted, on the grounds that Gamma Cephei A's post-main sequence fluctuations in luminosity were probably responsible for the signal of Gamma Cephei Ab. Later in 1995, the aforementioned French team of Mayor and Queloz announced the 51 Pegasi b, a gas giant planet half the mass of Jupiter orbiting a main-sequence yellow dwarf broadly similar to Sol in a tight orbit, using a refined version of the radial velocity method pioneered by Campbell et al.

    More than 200 exoplanets have been discovered since, all but a handful using variations on the precision radial-velocity technique pioneered at the University of Victoria. One of these planets orbits Gamma Cephei, just as Campbell and Walker suspected.

    "Everyone in the field recognizes that Campbell and Walker were the first ones to see evidence for a planet around a Sun-like star in 1992," said UBC astronomer Jaymie Matthews. "Bruce and Gordon could have legitimately gone out and told everybody they'd found a planet." He sighs. "But being good scientists -- and maybe maybe being conservative Canadians -- they didn't make the proclamation that it was definitely a planet."


    Their 1988 discovery was vindicated, happily, with the 2003 paper "Planet around [gamma] Cephei A", which definitively excluded the possibility that the signal of a planet orbiting Gamma Cephei A was spurious and concludes that the "most likely explanation of the residual radial velocity variations is a planetary-mass companion with 1.7MJ and an orbital semimajor axis of 2.13 AU." The authors note that the discovery of this planet, located in a a binary star system where the two stars approach each other quite closely, suggests something about the ease of forming planets. They also note that it's important to study stars for extended periods if one's planet-hunting, in order to come up with the best possible data.

    We did it. Canadians managed to make a major technological advance and in so doing helped to expand our species' knowledge of the universe around us immensely. What, I ask you, isn't very nice about that?
    Page generated Mar. 1st, 2026 08:28 pm
    Powered by Dreamwidth Studios