Planet with 2 Suns found

Got a question on astronomy that you'd wanted to ask? Ask your questions here and see if the old timers can give you some good answers.
Post Reply
User avatar
Clifford60
Posts: 1289
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:41 pm
Location: Central

Planet with 2 Suns found

Post by Clifford60 »

From CNA

WASHINGTON: US astronomers have discovered the first planet that is orbiting two Suns, much like the fictional home of Luke Skywalker featured in the movie Star Wars.

But forget about double-whammy sunsets and endless sun-tan days.

The newly discovered planet called Kepler-16b, is a freezing cold world.

According to the study was led by Kepler scientist Laurance Doyle of the California-based SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute, the planet the surface temperature of -100 to -150 Fahrenheit (-73 to -101 Celsius).

The planet, glimpsed with the US space agency's Kepler space telescope which monitors the brightness of 155,000 stars, is said to be about the size of Saturn and orbiting two parent Suns in a near perfect circle.

"This discovery is stunning," said co-author Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution for Science Department of Terrestrial Magnetism.

"Once again, what used to be science fiction has turned into reality."

While astronomers have previously glimpsed planets they believed were orbiting two stars, they had never before seen one actually passing in front of its two Suns so this discovery offers the first proof.

"Kepler-16b is the first confirmed, unambiguous example of a circumbinary planet -- a planet orbiting not one, but two stars," said co-author Josh Carter of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

"Once again, we're finding that our solar system is only one example of the variety of planetary systems nature can create."

According to the research published in the journal Science one of Kepler-16b's Suns is 20 percent as massive as Earth's Sun, and the other is 69 percent as massive.

While the planet orbits them, the two Suns dance with each other in an "eccentric 41-day orbit," the study said.

- AFP/sf

From another news source

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationn ... -fans.html

User avatar
Gary
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:06 am
Location: Toa Payoh
Contact:

Post by Gary »

@Clifford -Thanks for the info. Here's the related video:

[video width=640 height=390]http://www.youtube.com/v/PE1e9ihO_uc&hl=en_US&rel=0[/video]

Who would have thought this could be part of reality back then? They were all too mesmerised by the Princess Leia hologram which looked so unscientific .... oh wait:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8107 ... ality.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -room.html
http://www.astro.sg
email: gary[at]astro.sg
twitter: @astrosg


"The importance of a telescope is not how big it is, how well made it is.
It is how many people, less fortunate than you, got to look through it."
-- John Dobson.

User avatar
kingkong
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Borneo

Post by kingkong »

Gary wrote:Who would have thought this could be part of reality back then? They were all too mesmerised by the Princess Leia hologram which looked so unscientific ....
why should 3d hologram looked "unscientific"? [smilie=blocked.gif]

User avatar
Gary
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:06 am
Location: Toa Payoh
Contact:

Post by Gary »

Hi kingkong. My apologies for my lack of elaboration and clarification. It looked unscientific to *me* when I first saw the movie as a small kid. My scientific knowledge back then (most probably till today) was very little. I was too simple-minded back then and just enjoyed the movie purely as a hollywood make-believe sci-fi flick.

At that moment in time, I had no idea who was Dennis Gabor and did not have the motivation after watching the movie to find out more about the state of holography at that time. Also, did not remember watching on TV or reading from the news before I saw the movie that a similar device was already a reality and in production.

I conveniently assumed (most probably wrongly too) that among the thousands if not the millions of people who have watched the movie at that time, I may not be the only one who felt it was "unscientific". Thus, my use of "They" in my last sentence.

I hope this clarifies.
http://www.astro.sg
email: gary[at]astro.sg
twitter: @astrosg


"The importance of a telescope is not how big it is, how well made it is.
It is how many people, less fortunate than you, got to look through it."
-- John Dobson.

User avatar
kingkong
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:33 pm
Location: Borneo

Post by kingkong »

many things in science "fictions" are not "reality" yet due to a lack of technology, not because they are "unscientific". there is a subtle difference.

thanks for your clarification anyway.

User avatar
Gary
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 7:06 am
Location: Toa Payoh
Contact:

Post by Gary »

Hi kingkong. I agree with your statement.

Similarly, I feel that there are things which seems unscientific now because technologically, we do not have the high-precision/sensitive tools yet to make related measurements and come to a final conclusion.
http://www.astro.sg
email: gary[at]astro.sg
twitter: @astrosg


"The importance of a telescope is not how big it is, how well made it is.
It is how many people, less fortunate than you, got to look through it."
-- John Dobson.

User avatar
Airconvent
Super Moderator
Posts: 5628
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:49 pm
Location: United Federation of the Planets

Post by Airconvent »

Actually the technology for something close to the hologram was already existing in the late 70s. Basically, they pump up a sustained column of mist and project an image on it using a film projector. But of course, to be able to do it in 3 dimension and opaque as well into thin air would be a greater challenge! [smilie=crying3.gif]
The Boldly Go Where No Meade Has Gone Before
Captain, RSS Enterprise NCC1701R
United Federation of the Planets

Post Reply