|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Kepler K2 Mission Results
The Kepler K2 mission is conducting a search for exoplanets closer to
Earth than was the case for the K1 mission (before technical problems). This allows the mission to do a more careful census of exoplanets around M-dwarf stars, as well as brighter stars. http://www.nature.com/news/rebooted-...lanets-1.19126 One of the most surprising findings of the K2 results to date is the recognition that M-dwarf stars have an anomalously low abundance of exoplanets. This appears to confirm previous preliminary findings of an unusually low incidence of exoplanets orbiting M-dwarf stars, and that it is the lowest mass M-dwarfs that have the most anomalously low exoplanet abundance. While these findings were clearly not anticipated by conventional astrophysics, they were specifically and definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity (also referred to as the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm, or just Fractal Cosmology). In a paper submitted to arxiv.org in 2001 (long before the Kepler mission or other sufficient data for determining exoplanet abundances), it was predicted that M-dwarf stars would have an anomalously low incidence of exoplanets. It was also specifically predicted that it would be the lowest mass M-dwarfs in the 0.10 solar mass to 0.25 solar mass range that would manifest the most anomalously low exoplanet abundances. The paper is available for free (24/7) at arxiv.org : http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102285 Title: "Critical Test of the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm: Anomalously Few Planets Orbiting Low-Mass Red Dwarf Stars" Author: R.L. Oldershaw RLO (It's a fractal world) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kepler K2 Mission Results
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: One of the most surprising findings of the K2 results to date is the recognition that M-dwarf stars have an anomalously low abundance of exoplanets. This appears to confirm previous preliminary findings of an unusually low incidence of exoplanets orbiting M-dwarf stars, and that it is the lowest mass M-dwarfs that have the most anomalously low exoplanet abundance. While these findings were clearly not anticipated by conventional astrophysics, they were specifically and definitively predicted by Discrete Scale Relativity (also referred to as the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm, or just Fractal Cosmology). In a paper submitted to arxiv.org in 2001 (long before the Kepler mission or other sufficient data for determining exoplanet abundances), it was predicted that M-dwarf stars would have an anomalously low incidence of exoplanets. It was also specifically predicted that it would be the lowest mass M-dwarfs in the 0.10 solar mass to 0.25 solar mass range that would manifest the most anomalously low exoplanet abundances. M stars cover a large range, about 0.075 to about 0.5 solar masses. The Nature News piece says that there are fewer (than expected, presumably, according to some model, but I don't know how firm this prediction is) planets found by K2 around M stars, presumably including those between 0.4 and 0.5 solar masses. Your paper claims a strong cutoff at 0.4. So, if K2 finds "too few" below 0.4 solar masses, but also too few between 0.4 and 0.5, would this rule out DSR? In your conclusions, you write that if no sharp cutoff at 0.4 is observed, it would place the concept of cosmological self-similarity in considerable doubt. Stay tuned. I wrote the above in good faith. I now see that there are three versions on arXiv, from 2001, 2008, and 2012. The abstract for the 2008 version says "extensively rewritten". I haven't done a full comparison of all three versions. However, the 2001 version says that stars with masses greater than or equal to 0.29 solar masses are predicted to have a normal incidence of planets. So, the "definitive prediction" has already been revised. This version also says "A related, but less definitive, prediction is that the incidence (I) of planets in planetary systems should be roughly proportional to parent star masses" above the 0.29 solar-mass cutoff. What do current data say? This (admittedly less definitive) prediction was removed in the later revisions. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kepler K2 Mission Results
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 2:35:10 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Stay tuned. The different versions (i.e., 2 and 3) involved adding additional preliminary observational information relevant to the prediction, and importantly, attempted to refine the prediction to make it more specific, more diagnostic and less likely to run afoul of uncertainties in mass estimates. I am happy with version 3, which I think was submitted before Kepler started taking data. There have not been subsequent changes. I do expect that more massive stars definitely have the *potential* for larger planetary retinues, based on simple self-similarity arguments. On the other hand it critically depends on the state of the systems sampled. For *very large samples* that fairly sample available states in each unit mass range, I fully expect and predict that more massive stars will have more numerous planetary retinues. However, this could be explained in various other ways (than DSR) and so it does not meet my criteria for definitive predictions. The predicted unusually low incidence of planets orbiting M-dwarfs with masses between roughly 0.10 and 0.25 sol mas does qualify as a highly definitive prediction for Discrete Scale Relativity. Note: the prediction does not say *zero* planets, but rather an strongly anomalous deficit of planets in this mass range. [Mod. note: of course we don't know what an 'anomalous' deficit of planets is; the astrophysics of planet formation is complicated. The nature article appears to be drawing attention to a difference in the fraction of planets round M dwarfs in the K2 field and the original Kepler observations, _not_ an 'anomalously low' planet incidence in M dwarfs. In the original Kepler observations small planets were significantly _more_ abundant in M-dwarfs than in solar-type stars, see e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..201...15H -- mjh] RLO Fractal Cosmology |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kepler K2 Mission Results
On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 5:03:24 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 2:35:10 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: [Mod. note: of course we don't know what an 'anomalous' deficit of planets is; the astrophysics of planet formation is complicated. The nature article appears to be drawing attention to a difference in the fraction of planets round M dwarfs in the K2 field and the original Kepler observations, _not_ an 'anomalously low' planet incidence in M dwarfs. In the original Kepler observations small planets were significantly _more_ abundant in M-dwarfs than in solar-type stars, see e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ApJS..201...15H -- mjh] Probably we would both agree that predictions are best when the answer is not already known. There have been a number of publications on the incidence of planets orbiting M-dwarf stars, and the conclusions present a diverse view on this issue. One study that I think is mentioned in version 3 found planets orbiting M-dwarfs, but the authors noted the surprising finding that if they divided the M-dwarf sample into a high-mass half and low-mass half, then the planets were almost all orbiting stars in the high-mass subset. They had no explanation for this, but that is what I am predicting will eventually be fully confirmed. In case that paper did not make it into version 3, here is a link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5019 , Bonfils et al, ASAP, 549, Jan 2013. Nature will answer this question in due time. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kepler K2 Mission Results
Dne 10/01/2016 v 17:49 Robert L. Oldershaw napsal(a):
Probably we would both agree that predictions are best when the answer is not already known. Both predictions of known and unknown are important, each for different reason. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kepler Results? | Rob[_4_] | Research | 3 | June 21st 10 04:09 PM |
Kepler Results? | Rob[_4_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | June 16th 10 03:15 AM |
Where are the Kepler results? | Rob[_4_] | Research | 11 | May 1st 10 07:59 PM |
Kepler's Recent Results in Contradiction to Standard Planet Formation Theory | Juergen Barsuhn | Research | 26 | January 20th 10 01:29 PM |
NASA Announces Briefing About Kepler's Early Science Results | ron | News | 0 | August 5th 09 11:21 PM |