Is it Birth or Suicide of a Planet?

[Anaconda]

The title of the (AP) article is "Suicidal planet seems on death spiral into star", but is it instead a recently "born" planet via Wal Thornhill's hypothesis?

Astronomers have found what appears to be a gigantic suicidal planet.

The odd, fiery planet is so close to its star and so large that it is triggering tremendous plasma tides on the star. Those powerful tides are in turn warping the planet's zippy less-than-a-day orbit around its star.

The result: an ever-closer tango of death, with the planet eventually spiraling into the star.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090826/ap_ ... dal_planet

No small planet at that:

Its size — 10 times bigger than Jupiter — and its proximity to its star make it likely to die, Hellier said.

But even some astronomers question the conclusion:

It's so unusual to find a suicidal planet that University of Maryland astronomer Douglas Hamilton questioned whether there was another explanation. While it is likely that this is a suicidal planet, Hamilton said it is also possible that some basic physics calculations that all astronomers rely on could be dead wrong.

Well, yes, there could be some "basic physics calculations" that are "dead wrong"

And are the "plasma tides" really tides or could they be an electromagnetic current of charged particles between the star and the planet?

Could it be a mother star breast feeding her baby planet...

Discuss.

[nick c]

hi Anaconda,
Nice find.

The title of the (AP) article is "Suicidal planet seems on death spiral into star", but is it instead a recently "born" planet via Wal Thornhill's hypothesis?

I agree, it seems to me that this little guy is still close to mama. It is interesting that there are so many cases of gas giant planets orbiting close to the main star.

from the article:

The planet is 1.9 million miles from its star

It does not say how large is the main star, but if it were the Sun this would be getting uncomfortably close (less than a million miles) to the [url2=http://media4.obspm.fr/exoplanets/pages ... roche.html]Roche limit[/url2]. How would that apply in the EU, if at all? since a newborn must start out inside of the Roche limit. I would assume electrical forces overwhelming tidal forces, ie, the star and the newborn planet/star are balls of plasma, a need to fission in order to increase surface area and relieve electrical stress.

It's so unusual to find a suicidal planet that University of Maryland astronomer Douglas Hamilton questioned whether there was another explanation. While it is likely that this is a suicidal planet, Hamilton said it is also possible that some basic physics calculations that all astronomers rely on could be dead wrong.

Perhaps Prof. Hamilton is a very wise man, and/or knows more about a certain taboo subject than he cares to publicly admit?
Just thinking.

The answer will become apparent in less than a decade if the planet seems to be further in a death spiral, he said.

This will be interesting to see what develops, ten years, not that long of a wait. With the increase in the effectiveness of instrumentation and techniques, I would expect many more discoveries concerning stellar fissioning.


nick c

[greylion]

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/200 ... -wrong.ars
The above article is about the same planet, but the Ars Technica team is noticing the low probability of discovering a planet with such a short orbital period.

At the end of the article, they write;
"the authors figure that the planet is now close enough that, were our values for Q reasonably accurate, we'll be able to see an orbital decay within a decade."

The other option; if the orbit doesn't decay within a decade, is not mentioned.

How should this system develop according to E.U. theory?

[nick c]

From "Planet Birthing - More Evidence"

The stellar parturition model seems to offer a simple
solution to:
a) the presence of heavy elements in gas giants,
b) a greater number of gas giants being found around
stars of high metallicity, and
c) the propensity for close orbits of the gas giants
about their parent star.

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVII05.txt

It would be interesting to see if the parent star in this case (the original post) is one of those "high metallicity" stars.

nick c

[nick c]

Some links,

Articles in Nature:
[url2=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08245.html]An orbital period of 0.94 days for the hot Jupiter planet WASP 18b[/url2]
[url2=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 1086a.html]Extrasolar planets Secrets that only tides will tell[/url2]

Sky and Telescope:
[url2=http://www.skyandtelescope.com/communit ... g/newsblog]Why Does Exoplanet WASP-18b Exist[/url2]?

Here's the conundrum: With roughly 10 times the mass of Jupiter, it's hefty enough and close enough to raise a significant tidal bulge on the star. And because it orbits in just 22½ hours, faster than any other confirmed hot Jupiter and much faster than the star spins, this tidal interaction should be robbing WASP-18b of angular momentum. In all likelihood, the planet is being dragged inward toward its doom — and fast.

space.com:
[url2=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... lanet.html]Newfound Planet Might Be Near Death[/url2]

physics forum thread:
[url2=http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2326000]The WASP 18b mystery[/url2]

nick c

[jjohnson]

Halton Arp observed and measured pulsars, ejected from active radio galaxies, to have an 'intrinsic' red shift which is typically significantly higher than the parent galaxy. This is one of the features of his 'peculiar galaxies'. He further speculates that a pulsar is a proto-galaxy which loses red shift as it evolves away from being a pulsar, if I've gotten this right. This type of ejection is a plasma-rich event, I would speculate.

If plasma events scale up and down, is it possible that the fission of an electrically over-stressed star is similar in expression to the galactic event in some ways, and that it might be possible to find a red shift change between the time the new planet (or proto-binary-star companion) is in front of (transiting) the star, and when it is behind and eclipsed by the parent star? Have spectral measurement been made during each of these times, and their red shifts compared?

"Contrary to all expectations, the planet appears to have a highly luminous velocity component based on its red shift of 1.7. Observers are at a complete loss for an explanation, and a grant application to study its dark matter implications has already been forwarded to the agency."

If new stars exhibit anomalously high red shifts, that might be a better way of estimating their relative newness or age than at what point their luminosity and color temperature put them on the H-R scale.

Jim

[nick c]

Hi Jim,

Halton Arp observed and measured pulsars, ejected from active radio galaxies, to have an 'intrinsic' red shift which is typically significantly higher than the parent galaxy. This is one of the features of his 'peculiar galaxies'. He further speculates that a pulsar is a proto-galaxy which loses red shift as it evolves away from being a pulsar, if I've gotten this right.

I assume that you are thinking of [url2=http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... asars.html]quasars[/url2] and not [url2=http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/scien ... lsars.html]pulsars[/url2].

If new stars exhibit anomalously high red shifts, that might be a better way of estimating their relative newness or age than at what point their luminosity and color temperature put them on the H-R scale.

An interesting point. I don't know to what degree the scaling down analogy (from galaxy to star) will allow for a shift in the spectrum of the offspring or if the present level of technology would even allow a spectrum to be taken for the new born planet/star.

nick c

[mharratsc]

Wouldn't the planet have to be emitting it's own light, to tell? I would think that any reflected light from the primary would just show the same red shift as directly received light from the star... though I wish there were some way to tell the apparent age somehow. :\

Mike H.

[nick c]

Hi Mike,

Apparently spectrums of some extra solar planets can be taken, although through indirect means.
[url2=http://www.innovations-report.com/html/ ... 79497.html]Nasa Scientists Detect Spectrum of Planets Orbiting Other Stars[/url2]

The team took advantage of the unique geometry of this particular planetary system. It is a so-called "transiting planet," meaning that the planet crosses in front of its star as seen from Earth. By measuring the spectrum of the planet and star together, then subtracting the spectrum of the star alone (when the planet is hidden behind the star), scientists can figure out the spectrum of the planet.

As an aside, it would not surprise me if some of these "hot Jupiters" are emitting their own light, as many are gas giant planet/brown dwarf, or take your pick.

Also of interest:
[url2=http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4k130403123r138/]The Effect of Clouds on the Visible Spectra of Extrasolar Giant Planets[/url2]

nick c

[jjohnson]

to nick c: Oops; yes, quasars. Thanks. Doesn't everybody type faster than they can think?
J

[jjohnson]

By the way, just so y'all know, my "quote" (the newsy one-line paragraph in quotes) was completely tongue-in-cheek and not attributable to The Agency, whose press releases we love to read!

Jim

[Peron]

The simple theory is the right theory. The planet is falling into the star. Many things lead to this conclusion, 1: The planet doesn't have a high enough escape velocity, 2: We have evidence of "death spirals" in our own solar system, Mars' moon phobos is 5,600 miles away from the martian surface, thats 40 times closer than our moon is to the Earth. Phobos is expected to crash into Mars in about eleven million years.
So these death spirals aren't that unusual.

cite: http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1454

[StevenJay]

The simple theory is the right theory. The planet is falling into the star. Many things lead to this conclusion, 1: The planet doesn't have a high enough escape velocity, 2: We have evidence of "death spirals" in our own solar system, Mars' moon phobos is 5,600 miles away from the martian surface, thats 40 times closer than our moon is to the Earth. Phobos is expected to crash into Mars in about eleven million years.
So these death spirals aren't that unusual.

In a strictly mechanical, gravity-driven universe you might have a no-contest case. But it doesn't appear that we live in one of those.

[Ion01]

The simple theory is the right theory. The planet is falling into the star. Many things lead to this conclusion, 1: The planet doesn't have a high enough escape velocity, 2: We have evidence of "death spirals" in our own solar system, Mars' moon phobos is 5,600 miles away from the martian surface, thats 40 times closer than our moon is to the Earth. Phobos is expected to crash into Mars in about eleven million years.
So these death spirals aren't that unusual.

cite: http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1454

The key word is "expected". The reality is that the assumption that it will crash into mars is based upon numerous other unfounded assumptions based in math and not science or the "scientific method". On the other hand the conclusion that the star is not "in a death spiral" is based upon lab experiments in plasma science. It is testable unlike the death spiral conclusion.

[Peron]

The simple theory is the right theory. .......

cite: http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1454

The key word is "expected". The reality is that the assumption that it will crash into mars is based upon numerous other unfounded assumptions based in math and not science or the "scientific method". On the other hand the conclusion that the star is not "in a death spiral" is based upon lab experiments in plasma science. It is testable unlike the death spiral conclusion.

You have the results of those lab experiments?