A planet without a star may have been found

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1211/15rogue/
A possible free-floating exoplanet, drifting through interstellar space without a star of its own to orbit, has been discovered a hundred light years from Earth. If confirmed, it will be the first of its kind to be proven to exist - and there may be billions more like it out there.

This is so cool!

Still, I can't help but put this in. Just to throw it out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8

What if it's not a planet... per se?
 

Gil Paul

Registered
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Messages
35
Reaction score
2
Location
Edison, NJ
Great link! Made me smile!

In regards to the planet - just one more illustration of how little we really know. I would like to believe that humanity has finally figured out that just about anything is possible! Of course, too many people can only manage to believe in that which can be seen with their own eyes.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
The thing that may make this not unusual is that it may be a brown dwarf. Brown dwarfs form exactly the way stars do, but they lack enough mass to get fusion started.

Here's a pretty good illustrated description of stellar formation.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html

The point is that there could be quite a large number of brown dwarfs out there. They would look like free floating planets but are really stars that never started shining.

More analysis would need to be done to tell which this is.
 

Maxinquaye

That cheeky buggerer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
10,361
Reaction score
1,032
Location
In your mind
Website
maxoneverything.wordpress.com
Isn't that a mere classification thing though? I mean, every celestial body is born in roughly the same way - the difference between a star and a planet is, in essence, which one passed beyond a mass barrier to ignite fusion and which didn't.

Someone said once that Sol is a binary system, except Jupiter never got the last bit of mass in order to ignite. That is of course the premise behind 2010, where Jupiter is ignited artificially. :)
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
What if it's not a planet... per se?
It could be the Debt Star. :D

debt-star-small.jpg
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Isn't that a mere classification thing though? I mean, every celestial body is born in roughly the same way - the difference between a star and a planet is, in essence, which one passed beyond a mass barrier to ignite fusion and which didn't.

Someone said once that Sol is a binary system, except Jupiter never got the last bit of mass in order to ignite. That is of course the premise behind 2010, where Jupiter is ignited artificially. :)

Yes and no or kind of. It is true that the distinction between a gas giant, a brown dwarf, and a star is largely one of mass. But there's also what's swirling around what as formation happens.

One way to think about the development of the entire non-dark-matter, non-dark-energy universe (i.e. the small part we baryonic bigots think is important) is that small asymmetries in the initial distribution of hydrogen (also helium, lithium and other odds and ends) led gravitationally to clumping together into proto-galactic clusters which further clumped into proto-galaxies, proto-stars etc. If enough of this concentrates down to enough stuff in a small enough volume fusion starts. Smaller sized lumps can become brown dwarfs or gas giants.

But there's also heavier gunk out there, the dust that forms planetesimals out of which planets like ours (the small rocky ones) are formed).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetesimal

In a system such as ours there was enough gunk and planetesimals for even our gas giants to get a belly full of heavier stuff probably lodged inside them (it's hard to say). There's certainly a lot of junk rotating around them in the form of moons and rings.

So there's a question about whether this 'rogue planet' had an opportunity as part of a forming solar system to attract that kind of junk or not.

The origin of this object (free standing brown dwarf or orphaned planet) would probably determine a lot about what's inside it and possibly what's in orbit around it.
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
The thing that may make this not unusual is that it may be a brown dwarf. Brown dwarfs form exactly the way stars do, but they lack enough mass to get fusion started.

Here's a pretty good illustrated description of stellar formation.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html

The point is that there could be quite a large number of brown dwarfs out there. They would look like free floating planets but are really stars that never started shining.

More analysis would need to be done to tell which this is.

True, but there are likely planets out there that have been ejected from their solar systems as well.
 

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
If it starts speaking in Orson Welles' voice, run and call the Autobots.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Astronomers have been speculating about the possibilities of "rogue planets" for quite some time. Problem is, such objects are bloody difficult to detect, even if they might be quite near us in celestial-scale terms. But there's no theoretical reason to think they don't exist, and every theoretical reason to believe that multitudes of them do.

caw
 

MattW

Company Man
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
6,326
Reaction score
855
Sorry to burst everyone's science-boners, but this doesn't really exist because exoplanets aren't covered in Genesis.
 

StormChord

Allegedly Gullible
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
736
Reaction score
85
Location
Staring at the sky
Damn it, I wanted to dibsie it! Thanks a lot, space pirate asuka.

Anyway, that really does sound awesome. I'm curious, though - wouldn't a free-floating planet eventually be drawn into orbit around a star anyway? I mean, space is big, but gravity doesn't have an outer limit for any given object, so probabilistically speaking wouldn't it be drawn into or in orbit around a sufficiently large gravitic attractor?
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
I'm curious, though - wouldn't a free-floating planet eventually be drawn into orbit around a star anyway? I mean, space is big, but gravity doesn't have an outer limit for any given object, so probabilistically speaking wouldn't it be drawn into or in orbit around a sufficiently large gravitic attractor?

No. This object is already in orbit around the center of our galaxy, which is the gravitational core. But the gravitational attraction of other stars, given the distances involved between them, is so tenuous that "capture" by one would be exceedingly unlikely. In fact, stars born close together in star-forming nebulae generally drift apart in their adolescence into the kind of loneliness the sun currently inhabits. The only stars gravitationally bound to one another are those siblings which formed as part of the same orbital system.

caw
 

StormChord

Allegedly Gullible
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
736
Reaction score
85
Location
Staring at the sky
No. This object is already in orbit around the center of our galaxy, which is the gravitational core. But the gravitational attraction of other stars, given the distances involved between them, is so tenuous that "capture" by one would be exceedingly unlikely. In fact, stars born close together in star-forming nebulae generally drift apart in their adolescence into the kind of loneliness the sun currently inhabits. The only stars gravitationally bound to one another are those siblings which formed as part of the same orbital system.

caw

Oh, okay. Thanks!