Posted on 04/24/2019 11:21:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Astronomers have managed to capture an amazingly clear image of CVSO 30c - a potential exoplanet orbiting a distant star named CVSO 30, that lies some 1,200 light-years away.
Besides being breathtaking to look at, researchers are extra excited about the new photo, because it could mean that CVSO 30 actually has two planets orbiting it instead of just one.
Follow-up observations and analysis will be needed to confirm CVSO 30c as a true exoplanet, but if verified, this would be the first star system to host both a close-in exoplanet and a far-out exoplanet.
Four years ago, astronomers found a different exoplanet - named CVSO 30b, which is too faint to see in this photo - orbiting the star, thanks to the transit method. This involves detecting planets by looking at how a star's light flickers when something passes in front of it.
Unlike CVSO 30b, which orbits remarkably close to CVSO 30 at a distance of roughly 1.2 million kilometres (744,000 miles), and takes only 11 hours to complete one lap, CVSO 30c is way further out, at a distance of 98,730,000,000,000 kilometres (61,347,977,809,592 miles) or 660 AU - a unit that's equivalent to the distance between Earth and the Sun.
In other words, CVSO 30c is 660 times further from its star than we are from our Sun.
At this distance, it takes CVSO 30c about 27,000 years to orbit CVSO 30 just once.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencealert.com ...
Oh .... so THAT’S what it looks like!
Hmmm...this is very curious, indeed.
At this point, I’m struggling with the implications that, at 1200 light years, one pixel in the image = 17 AU (if taken by the HST). The “tiny tiny brown dot” in the article image is what? ... two pixels wide and two pixels high?
Stars can, of course, be of enormous sizes.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_stars)
It’s unfathomable to think of a planet 34 AU in diameter. Is that even possible geologically?
Yet the only variable at play in the equation you provided is the size of the aperture (diameter) . Hubble’s is 2.4 meters. How much larger are the mirrors on the telescopes at the participating observatories? How much larger would they have to be to get the planet down to say, ... Jupiter size or even 1 AU?
On the other hand, this “planet” began as a pixilated image that subsequently has been reproduced digitally and manipulated digitally (perhaps many times). The image size could be an observational approximation being provided by the processing algorithms; a mathematical way of saying “I saw something here.” Or it could be some text editor’s attempt to assist the general reader.
Either way (or perhaps some other way), its true size and composition is for some very distant future generation to know. File it away in the box marked “Unanswerable Questions.”
Thanks for entertaining my comments and questions and providing informative answers.
Be well.
A planet 34 AU in diameter would collapse under the weight of its own gravity. The 17 AU would be the “beamwidth”, think of it as a bell curve, containing about half the energy, the rest would be smeared out, so a 17 AU planet would just fill about one (well matched) pixel.
I blew up the photo as big as I could and the planet just spans about 4 mm on my screen. Then I measured from the planet to star, about 152 mm. The planet is 660 AU from the star. 660 AU / 152 mm = 4.38 AU per mm, so 4.38 x 4 = 17.4 AU. The planet spans about 17 AU on the scale of that photograph. That does not mean that that planet is 17 AU across, it means that the optical resolution of the camera taking the picture is about 17 AU at that distance. It cannot distinguish a 1000 km diameter planet from a 1,000,000 km diameter planet.
The number of pixels used in displaying an unresolved target in a JPEG has nothing to do with the target’s actual diameter. The enormous size of the star itself is also almost certainly an artifact. It is how large the image of the star bloomed during the long exposure. The far tails of the diffraction bell curve, not the size of the star.
I must admit that I was surprised that the prospective discovery of a PLANET that large was not creating a bit more excitement. But your evaluation makes it clear that saying much more than “we can see directly that some sizeable object is at this location” exceeds what can be stated with certainty.
It is still a remarkable achievement.
Thanks for taking the time and applying your expertise to tease out these details from the image.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.