A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Science
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New planet GJ 1214 b



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 17th 09, 02:59 AM posted to sci.space.science
Alain Fournier[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default New planet GJ 1214 b


A new planet, GJ 1214 b, has been found some 40 l.y. away
with 2.678 Earth radius and 6.55 Earth mass.
[It was found using a 16-in telescope and a commercially
available camera, kind of something someone could have
done in his backyard, that's cool even if the planet is
hot].

What surprises me is its density, about 1870 kg/m^3, which
is consistent with 75% water and 25% rock. I'm no expert
in this area, but so much water (or other low density
liquid or solid) seems improbable to me. Does anyone
know about how the radius was measured? Is it possible
that it would be a much denser planet with a very large
atmosphere. The atmosphere giving it nearly half its
radius?

Does anyone think that 75% water for such a large planet
is a likely scenario.



Alain Fournier

  #2  
Old December 18th 09, 12:39 AM posted to sci.space.science
James Nicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default New planet GJ 1214 b

In article ,
Dan Birchall wrote:
(Alain Fournier) wrote:
What surprises me is its density, about 1870 kg/m^3, which
is consistent with 75% water and 25% rock. I'm no expert
in this area, but so much water (or other low density
liquid or solid) seems improbable to me.


I'm not a planetary scientist either, but I googled, and this
density is roughly comparable to that of our outer planets -
Neptune's density is 1760 kg/m^3, Pluto's is 2030 kg/m^3. The
planet's orbital radius and temperature would probably help shed
light on what elements would most likely be found there in solid,
liquid or gaseous forms.

The six most common elements in the universe are hydrogen,
helium, oxygen, carbon and neon*. If a world isn't massive/cold enough
to hold onto H2 (and given that neither helium nor neon will form
chemical compounds) the most common chemical compounds should
be made up of combinations of H, O and C. In other words, water
should be pretty common.


* From memory, by mass it's something like 70% H, 24% He, 11% O, 4.5% C
1% Ne.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

  #3  
Old December 18th 09, 04:50 PM posted to sci.space.science
Alain Fournier[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default New planet GJ 1214 b

James Nicoll wrote:

In article ,
Dan Birchall wrote:

(Alain Fournier) wrote:

What surprises me is its density, about 1870 kg/m^3, which
is consistent with 75% water and 25% rock. I'm no expert
in this area, but so much water (or other low density
liquid or solid) seems improbable to me.


I'm not a planetary scientist either, but I googled, and this
density is roughly comparable to that of our outer planets -
Neptune's density is 1760 kg/m^3, Pluto's is 2030 kg/m^3. The
planet's orbital radius and temperature would probably help shed
light on what elements would most likely be found there in solid,
liquid or gaseous forms.


The six most common elements in the universe are hydrogen,
helium, oxygen, carbon and neon*. If a world isn't massive/cold enough
to hold onto H2 (and given that neither helium nor neon will form
chemical compounds) the most common chemical compounds should
be made up of combinations of H, O and C. In other words, water
should be pretty common.


* From memory, by mass it's something like 70% H, 24% He, 11% O, 4.5% C
1% Ne.


But this planet is near to its star and not very big. Close to the
star water not already on a planet there is likely to be a gas and
blown away. So I have a hard time imagining water accreting to form
a planet there. I would expect that you would need a big rock
core before it can hold on to water. Being so close to the star
the hypothesized 25% rock seems barely enough. Mars has a hard
time holding on to its water and it is much colder, Venus didn't
hold on to much water. I guess the planet could have been formed
in two steps.
1- The 25% rock forms a nucleus (that is a little more than Earth's mass).
2- The 75% water can now accrete to the nucleus.
But I have a hard time imagining the water staying in low stellar orbit
long enough for that to happen, wouldn't it be blown away?


Alain Fournier

  #4  
Old December 19th 09, 02:26 AM posted to sci.space.science
James Nicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default New planet GJ 1214 b

In article ,
Alain Fournier wrote:
James Nicoll wrote:

In article ,
Dan Birchall wrote:

(Alain Fournier) wrote:

What surprises me is its density, about 1870 kg/m^3, which
is consistent with 75% water and 25% rock. I'm no expert
in this area, but so much water (or other low density
liquid or solid) seems improbable to me.

I'm not a planetary scientist either, but I googled, and this
density is roughly comparable to that of our outer planets -
Neptune's density is 1760 kg/m^3, Pluto's is 2030 kg/m^3. The
planet's orbital radius and temperature would probably help shed
light on what elements would most likely be found there in solid,
liquid or gaseous forms.


The six most common elements in the universe are hydrogen,
helium, oxygen, carbon and neon*. If a world isn't massive/cold enough
to hold onto H2 (and given that neither helium nor neon will form
chemical compounds) the most common chemical compounds should
be made up of combinations of H, O and C. In other words, water
should be pretty common.


* From memory, by mass it's something like 70% H, 24% He, 11% O, 4.5% C
1% Ne.


But this planet is near to its star and not very big. Close to the
star water not already on a planet there is likely to be a gas and
blown away. So I have a hard time imagining water accreting to form
a planet there. I would expect that you would need a big rock
core before it can hold on to water. Being so close to the star
the hypothesized 25% rock seems barely enough. Mars has a hard
time holding on to its water and it is much colder, Venus didn't
hold on to much water. I guess the planet could have been formed
in two steps.
1- The 25% rock forms a nucleus (that is a little more than Earth's mass).
2- The 75% water can now accrete to the nucleus.
But I have a hard time imagining the water staying in low stellar orbit
long enough for that to happen, wouldn't it be blown away?


My impression is that worlds like these form beyond the frost line and
then migrate. In our solar system, there's reason to think Uranus and
Neptune have migrated outwards but in other systems, large worlds can be
seen in orbits where it appears unlikely they could have formed. Presumably
they migrated in.

A popular account of this process can be found he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_migration
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)

  #5  
Old December 19th 09, 02:26 AM posted to sci.space.science
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply][_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default New planet GJ 1214 b

Alain Fournier wrote:
A new planet, GJ 1214 b, has been found some 40 l.y. away
with 2.678 Earth radius and 6.55 Earth mass.

[[...]]

The key technical papers are
Charbonneau et al,
"A super-Earth transiting a nearby low-mass star"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3229
and
Rogers & Seager
"Three Possible Origins for the Gas Layer on GJ 1214b"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3243

--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]"
Dept of Astronomy, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"Space travel is utter bilge" -- common misquote of UK Astronomer Royal
Richard Woolley's remarks of 1956
"All this writing about space travel is utter bilge. To go to the
moon would cost as much as a major war." -- what he actually said

  #6  
Old December 19th 09, 02:27 AM posted to sci.space.science
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default New planet GJ 1214 b

In article ,
Alain Fournier writes:
But this planet is near to its star and not very big. Close to the
star water not already on a planet there is likely to be a gas and
blown away. So I have a hard time imagining water accreting to form
a planet there.


There's a press release with a few more details at
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/pr200924.html
and of course the full article is in this week's _Nature_.

The article doesn't actually say, but the planet diameter ought to
come from the transit timing and independently from the transit
depth. In any case, the ratio of planet to star diameter has an
error bar of less than one percent according to the article. The
error bar on planet density (which includes a variety of other
uncertainties) is about 21%.

The authors consider the time for atmospheric escape and estimate a
maximum of 700 Myr, whereas the age of the system is likely 3-10 Gyr.
The authors suggest that either the planet may have had much more
massive atmosphere in the past (most of which has now been lost) or
that the current atmosphere has recently been outgassed from the
planet's core. It wouldn't surprise me if there are other
possibilities.

The authors say nothing about formation, but we can speculate that
the planet may have formed relatively far from the star and migrated
inwards. It still seems to me that preserving a volatile atmosphere
for such a long time is difficult to explain.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

  #7  
Old December 19th 09, 06:30 AM posted to sci.space.science
Alain Fournier[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default New planet GJ 1214 b


Thanks to James Nicoll, Jonathan Thornburg and Steve Willner for their
interesting replies.

I went to read the article
http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3229
provided by Jonathan, I had search for the article earlier but got to
a site where one has to pay to have access, I thought I would have to
wait until I went to work (where we have subscriptions to a great variety
of scientific journals) to see the article, but thanks to Jonathan's link
I got to see it today.

They state both the 75% water 25% rock hypothesis I saw in the press release
and the much denser planet with a large atmosphere as I was hypothesizing in
my original post.


Alain Fournier

  #8  
Old December 21st 09, 04:52 AM posted to sci.space.science
Alain Fournier[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 373
Default New planet GJ 1214 b


So this is a planet which can be detected with amateur's
instruments. (16-in telescope and off the shelf commercial
camera) But it doesn't seem to be known whether it is a
mostly gas planet with a small heavy core or a 25% rock
75% water planet.

How could we distinguish between these two possibilities?


Alain Fournier

  #9  
Old December 21st 09, 08:28 PM posted to sci.space.science
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default New planet GJ 1214 b

In article ,
Alain Fournier writes:
it doesn't seem to be known whether it is a
mostly gas planet with a small heavy core or a 25% rock
75% water planet.

How could we distinguish between these two possibilities?


Observe transits at a wavelength where the atmosphere is expected to
be transparent?

It wouldn't surprise me if the authors have already requested
Director's Discretionary Time to observe with _Spitzer_, but no
programs are in the database as of now. Proposals for General
Observer time will be due in April. However, depending on the
atmospheric composition, I'm not sure it will be transparent at
3.6 microns, much less at 4.5 microns.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

  #10  
Old May 29th 11, 03:53 AM
neilzero neilzero is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: May 2011
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alain Fournier[_2_] View Post
A new planet, GJ 1214 b, has been found some 40 l.y. away
with 2.678 Earth radius and 6.55 Earth mass.
[It was found using a 16-in telescope and a commercially
available camera, kind of something someone could have
done in his backyard, that's cool even if the planet is
hot].

What surprises me is its density, about 1870 kg/m^3, which
is consistent with 75% water and 25% rock. I'm no expert
in this area, but so much water (or other low density
liquid or solid) seems improbable to me. Does anyone
know about how the radius was measured? Is it possible
that it would be a much denser planet with a very large
atmosphere. The atmosphere giving it nearly half its
radius?

Does anyone think that 75% water for such a large planet
is a likely scenario.



Alain Fournier
75% water is possible. Biological creatures, including humans, are about 85% water, so we can have solids with a high percentage of water. Also there are other possible explanations for the low density. The planet Saturn has a density of about one and gravity at the cloud tops of about one, so Saturn would be loosing hydrogen and helium, if it was in Earth's orbit, or would the loss rate be tiny? Even though the gravity is about the same as Earth, I suspect the escape velocity is double or more due to the larger size. Worse the escape velocity assumes the the trajectory is along the radius. For a large planet the escape path is often along a much longer path, so the accelerated hydrogen nuclei falls back into the atmosphere, up to 99% of the time. Also the larger planet sweeps it's path clean as it orbits around it's sun, so it may replace much of the mass it looses due to the solar wind. It is also likely the solar wind is weaker at the position of JG 1214b than at Earth's distance from our Sun.
A strong planetary magnetic field also drastically cuts atmosphere loss due to solar wind. Neil
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discoverer of Xena and 14 Other Planet Candidates Still Thinks Official Planet Count Should Be 8! Double-A Misc 0 August 23rd 06 05:15 AM
Planet Earth only known planet to harbor life per NY Times Newspaper nightbat Misc 11 August 12th 06 03:51 AM
Planet finders use much faster instrument to discover distant planet(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 January 13th 06 01:32 AM
Planet finders use much faster instrument to discover distant planet(Forwarded) Andrew Yee News 0 January 13th 06 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.