Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Find out the latest thinking about our universe.
Post Reply
User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 21577
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by bystander » Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:52 am

The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters
NASA Science News | Dr. Tony Phillips | 2013 Aug 17
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
When the Space Age began, astronomers knew of exactly zero planets outside the solar system. What a difference 50 years makes.

Modern, ground-based telescopes and NASA's Kepler spacecraft have now confirmed more than 850 exoplanets, while thousands more await confirmation. The pace of discovery suggests "there are at least 100 billion planets in our galaxy," says John Johnson of Caltech, who works with data from the Kepler mission. "That's mind-boggling."

When the hunt for exoplanets began, the focus was on Earth-like worlds, planets like our own that might support alien life in distant solar systems. Yet planets as small as Earth are difficult to detect when they circle stars hundreds of light years away. Indeed, only a handful have been found so far.

The real haul has been in gas giants, especially “hot Jupiters.” These are behemoth worlds that orbit close to their parent stars, blocking a fraction of the star’s light when it transits in front. Observations of hot Jupiter “mini-eclipses” have yielded hundreds of discoveries.

At first considered to be the "chaff" researchers would have to wade through to get to the fainter Earth-like worlds, hot Jupiters are now attracting their own attention.

Consider the case of "HD189733b," discovered in 2005 by a team working at the Haute-Provence Observatory in France. Because it is nearby, only 63 light years away, and because it blocks a whopping 3% of the light from its orange-dwarf parent star, astronomers are rapidly learning a great deal.

For one thing, it's blue. Data obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope suggest that, seen from a distance, the azure disk of HD 189733b would look to the human eye much like Earth. Indeed, some members of the media have taken to calling it "the other blue planet."

It is, however, anything but Earthlike.

In 2007, Heather Knutson of Caltech made a global temperature map of HD189733b using NASA’s infrared Spitzer Space Telescope. She knew it would be hot because HD189733b orbits its star 13 times closer than Mercury. “Even so, we were impressed by the readings,” she recalls. Temperatures ranged from 1200 F on the nightside to 1700 F on the dayside. Thermal gradients drive winds as fast as 6000 mph, carrying suffocating heat around the globe.

The blue color may be caused by silicate particles in the planet’s atmosphere, which scatter blue wavelengths of light from the parent star. The same physics plays out in Earth’s atmosphere, although the chemicals are different. Silicates are a component of glass, so some researchers have speculated that it is actually raining molten glass on HD189733b.

The newest observations come from a pair of X-ray observatories. NASA’s Chandra and the ESA’s XMM Newton watched HD189733b transit its star and detected a drop in X-rays three times deeper than the corresponding decrease in optical light. This means the outer atmosphere is larger than anyone expected.

In fact, it is probably boiling away. Authors of the study estimate HD189733b is losing 100 million to 600 million kilograms of mass per second.

"The extended atmosphere of this planet makes it a bigger target for high-energy radiation from its star, so more evaporation occurs," notes Scott Wolk of the Center for Astrophysics.

Blasts of stellar radiation hitting the planet at point-blank range could have another effect: auroras that wrap around the planet from pole to pole, orders of magnitude brighter than any Northern Lights in our own solar system. This is speculative, though.

While the search for Earth-like planets proceeds, hot Jupiters are a welcome albeit unexpected diversion. It makes you wonder, what will we be looking for 50 years from now…?

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=31831
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: East Idaho

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by BDanielMayfield » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:00 pm

51 Peg b was one of the first of this horde of hot Jupiters, found back in 1995. Back then it was surprising to find star hugging giant planets, but now it seems like they’re a dime a dozen. Several systems with multiple hot planets way inside Mercury’s orbit have been discovered.

How different these systems are from our Sun’s widely spread family of inner rocky planets and outer gas giants! This leads me to wonder, are Sun-like systems the rare exception to the rule of planetary arrangement?

Also, did these hot planets form where they are found, or did they form further out and spiral in?
Just as zero is not equal to infinity, everything coming from nothing is illogical.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13431
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Ann » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:26 pm

It was long expected - certainly in popular fiction, but probably also by many scientists - that alien solar system would look much like our own, with their planets in well-ordered near-circular orbits. It has been found since then that very many exoplanets orbit their stars in "strange" orbits. Among the strangest orbits are the retrograde ones, where the planets orbit in a direction with is opposite to the star's own spin.

Astronomers now think that the combined gravitational effects of binary stars may juggle their planets around and place them in very strange orbits, including retrograde ones. Read more here.

Judging from what we know about planets so far, orbits like the ones that we see in our own solar system may well be the minority.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2705
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by rstevenson » Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:46 pm

Ann wrote:Judging from what we know about planets so far, orbits like the ones that we see in our own solar system may well be the minority.
I think it's safer to say we don't know enough to judge how odd or common our own planetary arrangement might be. The technology we're currently using to find extrasolar planets makes it easy to find hot Jupiters and very hard to find small rocky planets no matter in what orbit they may be. So we don't yet have a large data set from which to draw good conclusions.

[side comment]: This idea of scientists being surprised by what they're finding is erroneous, I believe. When a scientist says they don't know something, it doesn't follow that they'll be surprised by whatever data they subsequently find out. I suppose "surprise" makes for a more compelling article in the popular press, but it's not the right way to think about science. I'd venture to suggest that very few astronomers have been surprised that we're finding planets in pretty much every stellar system we look at. The normal star formation process should produce a stellar system with a variety of objects in it besides the central star(s). Nor are they surprised by the kind of orbits they're finding, since they knew very well that we only had a data set of one stellar system, our own, as a starting point. The really surprising thing would have been to find a whole lot of systems like our own among the first batch we look at.

As the quoted article suggests, we'll know a lot more in 50 years. Until then I'll be fascinated (but not surprised) by whatever we find out there.

Rob

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13431
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Ann » Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:12 am

rstevenson wrote:
Ann wrote:Judging from what we know about planets so far, orbits like the ones that we see in our own solar system may well be the minority.
I think it's safer to say we don't know enough to judge how odd or common our own planetary arrangement might be. The technology we're currently using to find extrasolar planets makes it easy to find hot Jupiters and very hard to find small rocky planets no matter in what orbit they may be. So we don't yet have a large data set from which to draw good conclusions.
I certainly agree that we haven't discovered a sufficiently large number of Earth-size planets to to say with any certainty what their typical orbits are like.
[side comment]: This idea of scientists being surprised by what they're finding is erroneous, I believe. When a scientist says they don't know something, it doesn't follow that they'll be surprised by whatever data they subsequently find out. I suppose "surprise" makes for a more compelling article in the popular press, but it's not the right way to think about science. I'd venture to suggest that very few astronomers have been surprised that we're finding planets in pretty much every stellar system we look at. The normal star formation process should produce a stellar system with a variety of objects in it besides the central star(s). Nor are they surprised by the kind of orbits they're finding, since they knew very well that we only had a data set of one stellar system, our own, as a starting point. The really surprising thing would have been to find a whole lot of systems like our own among the first batch we look at.

As the quoted article suggests, we'll know a lot more in 50 years. Until then I'll be fascinated (but not surprised) by whatever we find out there.

Rob
In a book printed in 1997, Planet Quest by Ken Croswell, a planetary scientist is quoted saying that because planets are formed from the same disk that gives rise to the parent star, the planets should typically have relatively circular orbits. I don't know if this scientist has been surprised by the menagerie of planetary orbits out there, but his prediction, as far as we know right now, has not been borne out by the facts.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2705
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by rstevenson » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:31 am

Ann wrote:In a book printed in 1997, Planet Quest by Ken Croswell, a planetary scientist is quoted saying that because planets are formed from the same disk that gives rise to the parent star, the planets should typically have relatively circular orbits. I don't know if this scientist has been surprised by the menagerie of planetary orbits out there, but his prediction, as far as we know right now, has not been borne out by the facts.
Do we know much about the orbits of the planets we're finding? (I haven't been keeping up with the details.)

It's true that most planetary orbits should be fairly close to circular, or at least they should start out that way. But I would guess that the somewhat chaotic nature of stellar system formation should produce some variation from that norm, just as we find in the Solar System, and therefore those variations shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Rob

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13431
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Ann » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:32 am

Here you can see a chart of the eccentricity of the planets that had been discovered up until 2011. As you can see, 228 out of the 606 planets (38%) that were discovered at that time have nearly circular orbits. More than half of the planets have orbits that are considerably more eccentric than the orbit of the Earth, and some have extremely eccentric orbits.

Ann
Color Commentator

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: East Idaho

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by BDanielMayfield » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:04 am

That's an interesting discussion about eccentricity Ann and Rob, but the factor that makes these hot Jupiters hot is their having very small semi-major axis as compared to our system. And maybe this didn't come as a big surprise to astronomers, (at least, not that some might care to admit), but were many giant planets in tight orbits expected prior to 1995? Perhaps a more scientifically acceptable way to say this could be that the finding of so many tight orbit giant planets wasn't widely predicted prior to their discovery?
Just as zero is not equal to infinity, everything coming from nothing is illogical.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13431
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Ann » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:54 am

BDanielMayfield wrote:That's an interesting discussion about eccentricity Ann and Rob, but the factor that makes these hot Jupiters hot is their having very small semi-major axis as compared to our system. And maybe this didn't come as a big surprise to astronomers, (at least, not that some might care to admit), but were many giant planets in tight orbits expected prior to 1995? Perhaps a more scientifically acceptable way to say this could be that the finding of so many tight orbit giant planets wasn't widely predicted prior to their discovery?
The way I remember the discovery of the hot Jupiters, many astronomers were totally taken aback by their presence, and they were initially unable to explain them. So they were clearly surprised.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2705
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by rstevenson » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:51 pm

Ann wrote:The way I remember the discovery of the hot Jupiters, many astronomers were totally taken aback by their presence, and they were initially unable to explain them. So they were clearly surprised.
So you're saying their reasoning went something like this... We have almost no data, so we'll construct a model based on the Solar System. [time passes] Now that we have data we see much that doesn't fit our model, so we are "taken aback" and "surprised"?

I think it's much more likely it went like this... We have almost no data, so we'll construct a model based on the Solar System. [time passes] Now that we have data we see much that doesn't fit our model, so we need to revise the model as well as look for more data.

The former is popular science reporting. The latter is science as it's practiced. (I hope!)

Rob

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13431
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Ann » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:39 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar ... iscoveries wrote about hot Jupiters:

Initially, most known exoplanets were massive planets that orbited very close to their parent stars. Astronomers were surprised by these "hot Jupiters", since theories of planetary formation had indicated that giant planets should only form at large distances from stars.
I remember quite well the apparent astonishment of many astronomers at the discovery of the hot Jupiters.

Of course astronomers did revise their models, and they did come up with a plausible explanation for the hot Jupiters (namely planetary migration). Initially they were surprised, however, or at least many of them acted as if they were.

Ann
Color Commentator

User avatar
Beyond
500 Gigaderps
Posts: 6889
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:09 am
Location: BEYONDER LAND

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Beyond » Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:11 pm

I think I'd be surprised if "They" ever get to the beginning of all this. :mrgreen:
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2705
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by rstevenson » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:51 pm

Ann wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar ... iscoveries wrote about hot Jupiters:

Initially, most known exoplanets were massive planets that orbited very close to their parent stars. Astronomers were surprised by these "hot Jupiters", since theories of planetary formation had indicated that giant planets should only form at large distances from stars.
I remember quite well the apparent astonishment of many astronomers at the discovery of the hot Jupiters.

Of course astronomers did revise their models, and they did come up with a plausible explanation for the hot Jupiters (namely planetary migration). Initially they were surprised, however, or at least many of them acted as if they were.
You're defending your position, but you're not proving your point. Since it's from Wikipedia we don't know who wrote that particular comment, nor does that comment actually quote any surprised scientist. Do you have any links to an astronomer actually saying, "I am surprised by these findings"?

Rob

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13431
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Ann » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:39 pm

Rob wrote:

You're defending your position, but you're not proving your point. Since it's from Wikipedia we don't know who wrote that particular comment, nor does that comment actually quote any surprised scientist. Do you have any links to an astronomer actually saying, "I am surprised by these findings"?
In Ken Croswell's book Planet Quest (A Harvest Book, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997), you can read this:
But not everyone was so thankful for the strange planet around 51 Pegasi. "It was a spectacular disproof of my prediction," said Alan Boss, a theorist at the Carnegie Institution. "I was surprised and shocked. It caused me a few sleepless nights, you might say." Just months before, Boss had said that extrasolar Jupiterlike planets must form far from their stars, as Jupiter and Saturn had. Furthermore, he had said, planet seekers who used the Doppler technique - such as Mayor and Queloz, and Marcy and Butler - were unlikely to succeed; astrometry, which is more sensitive to distant planets, was the way to go. (Page 195)
...
Boss was hardly the only theorist who thought such planets must form far from their stars. (Page 196)


What Ken Croswell wrote here is what I remember. Several astronomers expressed surprise, and were scrambling for an explanation for the hot Jupiters.

Ann
Last edited by Ann on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Color Commentator

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by geckzilla » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:50 pm

Some were probably surprised. Some were probably not surprised. Some other emotions may have also been felt. Does it really matter so much?
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18187
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:00 pm

rstevenson wrote:So you're saying their reasoning went something like this... We have almost no data, so we'll construct a model based on the Solar System. [time passes] Now that we have data we see much that doesn't fit our model, so we are "taken aback" and "surprised"?

I think it's much more likely it went like this... We have almost no data, so we'll construct a model based on the Solar System. [time passes] Now that we have data we see much that doesn't fit our model, so we need to revise the model as well as look for more data.
Both views are accurate. For a long time, a model based on the Solar System made very good sense, on various grounds. So finding significant numbers of exceptions was surprising. Scientists are often surprised by unexpected observations, but seldom shocked or "taken aback".

It should be noted that our models of the Solar System were already changing as details of extrasolar planets first appeared, so the surprise wasn't great, nor was much work needed to understand how many types of orbits can occur.

I just finished this evening (morning in North America) the last day of a pair of back-to-back scientific conferences on the dynamics of dust in the Solar System- a field closely related to other aspects of planetary system dynamics. This is a field that has advanced dramatically just in the last ten years or so, driven by a rapid increase in computer power allowing complex multiple body systems to be accurately modeled over millions of years. Until this technological advancement, there was simply no way to really understand the role that gravitational perturbation and resonance play in shaping a planetary system. In my narrow field of meteoritics, advances in radar and optical measurement techniques have led to orbital solutions for hundreds of thousands of meteors, and radiant solutions for millions. This data has provided some of the strongest observational evidence supporting recent dynamical evolution models, including planetary migration, early planet ejection, collisional epochs, Oort cloud interactions, and many other features not only of the Solar System, but of other systems as well. In essence, these help us understand important fundamental similarities between our system and others, despite what superficially appears very different.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 2524
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: East Idaho

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by BDanielMayfield » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:25 am

geckzilla wrote:Some were probably surprised. Some were probably not surprised. Some other emotions may have also been felt. Does it really matter so much?
Right. This largely seems to be a debate over semantics. And in the words that prompted it; “it was surprising to find star hugging giant planets”, I did not specify WHO was surprised, nor to what degree. I wrote the comment largely about myself. Rob, I was surprised, which doesn’t matter at all, even to me. But thanks for the defense Ann.
Chris Peterson wrote:
rstevenson wrote:So you're saying their reasoning went something like this... We have almost no data, so we'll construct a model based on the Solar System. [time passes] Now that we have data we see much that doesn't fit our model, so we are "taken aback" and "surprised"?

I think it's much more likely it went like this... We have almost no data, so we'll construct a model based on the Solar System. [time passes] Now that we have data we see much that doesn't fit our model, so we need to revise the model as well as look for more data.
Both views are accurate. For a long time, a model based on the Solar System made very good sense, on various grounds. So finding significant numbers of exceptions was surprising. Scientists are often surprised by unexpected observations, but seldom shocked or "taken aback".
Yes. And aren’t the unexpected, dare I say, “surprising” findings the most intriguing? They’re the ones that can lead to exciting new insights and discovery.
Just as zero is not equal to infinity, everything coming from nothing is illogical.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18187
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: Science@NASA: The Strange Attraction of Hot Jupiters

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Aug 31, 2013 5:54 am

BDanielMayfield wrote:Yes. And aren’t the unexpected, dare I say, “surprising” findings the most intriguing? They’re the ones that can lead to exciting new insights and discovery.
Absolutely. I don't know of much that delights good scientists more than demonstrating an idea is wrong, or having their own ideas found wrong.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

Post Reply