Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Brickleberried t1_j9uuuyc wrote

So "size" in this context means radius of the star vs. planet, not the mass, area, or volume.

I think calling it "forbidden" is very hyperbolic. It's at the extreme end of what we know, but it's not unreasonable for it to form as such under current planet formation theories given reasonable uncertainties and variability.

249

SolomonBlack t1_j9vb94g wrote

Well the objection isn’t any size relation but that under current models a Jupiter-type planet that close to this type of star “should” have boiled away before properly forming.

Ergo begs the question is this some Goldilocks scenario that is astronomically rare… or are we going to start finding these by the dozens and need to update our models.

Headline still very clickbait but the actual naming tracks with science’s bad habit of bad names getting out into the public sphere minus context.

97

Brickleberried t1_j9vc09x wrote

My first sentence is just my general complaint about space journalism that the word "size" is not clear because it could mean several things that are very different.

The paper itself admits that this could be the extreme end of our current models given known uncertainties and variabilities and therefore not "forbidden", but yeah, if they find a bunch of them, then we'll have to start tweaking models more.

In other words, good paper, bad headline and slightly hyperbolic article, as is typical for science journalism.

33

CromulentDucky t1_j9wv50w wrote

There was a meteorite this week that was 'the size of a Corgi and three times the weight of an elephant.' I still don't know what that means.

https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/117zuci/corgisized_meteor_as_heavy_as_4_baby_elephants/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

6

Mialayy t1_j9xzfo1 wrote

4 BABY elephants bro. Please if you cite someone do it properly. God damn it’s baby elephants aren’t they cute tho?

5

ciarenni t1_j9v3rtq wrote

I was going to say, white dwarf stars are very small (on the scale of space) but still have a good portion of their prior mass. It's very reasonable to assume that a planet could form around it, even if improbable.

17

Brickleberried t1_j9v87uu wrote

A white dwarf is a dead star that lost much of its mass though, so it's not really comparable. Gas giants will never form around a white dwarf, although secondary rocky planets might.

14

ciarenni t1_j9wf6oh wrote

Yeah, it wasn't the best example star but my point was that just because it's small doesn't mean anything about how much mass it has, which is the point that I feel like the headline was missing.

1

Brickleberried t1_j9zisc7 wrote

Radius of a main sequence star is proportional to the mass of the star. If you know the radius, you can pretty accurately get the mass. (It depends some on age and metallicity too, but not that much, as long as it hasn't evolved to a red giant yet.)

Planets, on the other hand, don't follow the rule nearly as well, especially for gas giants. Jupiter and a brown dwarf 80x the mass of Jupiter both have the same radius.

1

yousonuva t1_j9vegev wrote

>I think calling it "forbidden" is very hyperbolic

Yes well, it is space.com

13

PhasmaFelis t1_ja0682l wrote

> So "size" in this context means radius of the star vs. planet, not the mass, area, or volume.

Thank you. It was so obnoxious that it didn't explain that.

2

GoofAckYoorsElf t1_j9yjb1d wrote

Uh volume is directly related to the radius

1

Brickleberried t1_j9zhq73 wrote

By r^3 , sure, but if a star is 4x the radius, it's 64x the volume, so whether you meant "4x the size" meaning radius or "4x the size" meaning volume, the two are very different.

1

ThisOnePlaysTooMuch t1_j9xjry5 wrote

You’re telling me the rock is going around a ball of nuclear fusion in way that is consistent with our understanding of how rocks go around balls of nuclear fusion? Fascinating. It’s just a catchy headline, isn’t it? I’m guessing the discovery isn’t too revealing?

0

Brickleberried t1_j9zig89 wrote

The discovery is very cool. I just dislike using "size" because it's unclear and dislike using "forbidden" because it sacrifices accuracy for sounding even cooler. An accurate headline that still sounds cool(ish) would be "Massive planet orbiting small red dwarf, an extreme mass ratio that challenges planet formation". I'm sure a professional could clean that up a bit without using the word "forbidden".

But it's still a very cool discovery.

1

JustAPerspective t1_j9zbcnj wrote

This.

The idea that human theories of the universe have any inherent credibility is patently absurd - like an infant in the womb asserting how things work on other continents, based solely on their limited experiences under vastly different circumstances.

Everything humans "know" is a guess that might be wrong.

Every mistake we discover is an opportunity to celebrate how many more options there truly are in the universe.

0