backtop


Print 17 comment(s) - last by CloudFire.. on Jan 13 at 6:01 AM


An artist's rendition of the newly discovered rocky planet, Kepler-10b.  (Source: NASA)

"Hanny's Voorwerp", the green space blob, is seen at the bottom, while IC 2497 a galaxy hosting a dead quasar and black hole, is seen at the top.  (Source: NASA/ESA/William Keel, Univ. of Alabama/the Galaxy Zoo team)
Two deep space discoveries open the door to fascinating possibilities

I. A New Home?  Close, but no Cigar

Scientists got a bit warmer in their hunt for a new extrasolar home for mankind.  Using the ultra high-tech Kepler probe, which detects planets via light disturbances and attempts to analyze their composition, scientists discovered [press release] a rocky world similar in size to the planet Earth.

Unfortunately they were a little too hot in this case.  The planet, dubbed Kepler-10b, is ten times closer to its sun than Mercury is to our Sun.  The planet is likely similar to the prison world depicted in the Chronicles of Riddick -- molten by day, icy cold by night -- not exactly an ideal place to make your new home.

The planet is the first rocky planet to be discovered by the Kepler probe, which is currently 8 months into its mission, searching for habitable worlds.  While the location is poor for colonization, the size is just about right -- the rocky ball measures approximately 1.4 times the size of Earth in diameter.

Natalie Batalha, deputy science team leader for the NASA mission cheers the discovery, stating, "All of Kepler's best capabilities have converged to yield the first solid evidence of a rocky planet orbiting a star other than our sun."

And Kepler program scientist Douglas Hudgins adds, "Although this planet is not in the habitable zone, the exciting find showcases the kinds of discoveries made possible by the mission and the promise of many more to come."

II. The Blob -- Evidence of a Dead Quasar

Meanwhile scientists announced [press release] that they may have finally figured out what a massive green space blob was by using new images from the Hubble Space Telescope and new x-ray observations.

The blob rests 650 million light years away and was discovered in 2007 by Dutch secondary school biology teacher Hanny van Arkel.  It was named Hanny's Voorwerp (Dutch for "object") in her honor.

It turns out that the blob is a cloud of hot gas ejected from a previously acted neighboring quasar.  That quasar also output radiation, which eventually hit the gas cloud as they move through space.  The result was excitement of the cloud's oxygen atoms, producing a green glow.

Scientists were able to confirm that the neighboring galaxy had harbored the quasar by the fact that small stars had formed in the cloud (see yellowish dots in the upper right of the Hubble picture).  These stars are typically formed when jets of quasar particles collide with slower gas particles in a gas cloud, compressing the gas and forming a new star.

Further evidence was found in x-ray images, which show the quasar at the center of the neighboring galaxy -- IC 2497 -- was no longer active, likely because the black hole that powered it ran out of "food" (stellar matter).  The blob was still glowing strong, as it takes light tens of thousands of years to travel from the galaxy to the neighboring cloud.

The result was surprising as it showed the quasar deactivated in under 200,000 years -- far faster that physicists and astronomers though possible.  This discovery should help to provide revolutionary new insights into supermassive black holes and quasars.  And that's a rare opportunity, as quasars are typically much farther away and their environment is hard to study due to the overwhelming brightness of an active quasar.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Rocky, really?
By melgross on 1/11/2011 5:20:43 PM , Rating: 5
This seems to be a misreading of what this planet really is. A rocky planet, which in actually is mostly composed of a big ball or iron, as it's almost 5 times as heavy as the earth, isn't really a rocky planet.

A rocky planet is similar to ours, or Mars, or Venus. This is most likely the remnant of a much larger planet, likely a gassy one like Neptune, or Uranus. Because it orbits once every 0.83 earth days, it's so close, that everything other than the iron core, and some of the rocky center, burned off many millions of years ago. It should be locked to the star, meaning the one side faces the star at all times, as the moon does with us. So the side facing the star could be down to the iron core, while the side facing away, and vastly cooler could still have some of the rock left.

Depending on whether there are other planets further out, this might be quite a sight. If there's still enough material being burned off, we'd see a tail many of tens of millions of miles long, spiraling out from the planet, ending in a circle of dust and gas around the star. Since it orbits so closely, we would actually see it move during the orbit.

Quite spectacular!




RE: Rocky, really?
By CloudFire on 1/11/2011 11:54:44 PM , Rating: 3
From what I know, we only really have two classifications of planets: terrestrial, and jovians. Terrestrial planets have a heavy metal core, and/or have rocky outer surfaces like Earth/Venus/Mars. Jovians being the outer gassy planets beyond the ice ring.

So I'm curious about your reasoning of why you say this was a remnant of a gassy giant? Gas giants like jupiter and saturn have liquid metallic hydrogen as their core that can produce a dynamo effect which gives the planet a magnetic field, which preserves the gaseous atmosphere from solar winds. The reason why gas giants don't exist in the inner solar system is because the temperature would not allow their gaseous cores to exist in that state, hence why there are only terrestrial planets inside the ice ring with a rocky iron molten core. So I see no way that this can even remotely be a remnant of a gas giant.


RE: Rocky, really?
By nafhan on 1/12/2011 10:03:06 AM , Rating: 3
My understanding is that any heavier elements would precipitate into the core of a gas giant. No one actually knows what's in the core of a gas giant, of course, but I think it's very possible that one of them could have a core comprised largely of iron surrounded by metallic liquid helium.


RE: Rocky, really?
By AstroGuardian on 1/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Rocky, really?
By CloudFire on 1/13/2011 5:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
That is true that we don't know for sure, but evidence from such missions as Cassini is leaning to the theory of the cores being majorly comprised of those gases in the liquid metallic state. Other evidence such as the gas giants not being as circular (they are more flattened) as the terrestrial planets, also suggests that the the center core does not have much iron/metal (although can certainly possibly have more than estimated). My wording as off in the previous post, did not mean to say that the core is entirely made of metallic hydro/helium. Most of the things we know about planetary and pro planetary formation are from the study of our solar system and how it formed. The reason why most extrasolar planets we detected are giants is because we lack the technology to detect the smaller earth sized planets for decades. We have only detected the big ones so far because of a technique of detecting light changes around a star when a planet moves across it, and is much more difficult with planets similar size to earth. So what I said was not wrong, and science being the process of forming theories, until new evidence comes along to prove it otherwise. In our own solar system, the ice ring is the clear divider between the terrestrial/jovians, and that is what we had to go on for many decades. Just because a giant planet is near a star does not make it a gas giant nor is the size proof that a planet is gaseous, it could have formed in some way we never thought possible. So until we get up close enough to study extrasolar planets and their composition, you suggesting size to be any definitive factor with their relational distance from their star, is not plausible. There has also been extrasolar planets that are farther away from their star as well, as you can see, one theory does not fit everything.


RE: Rocky, really?
By CloudFire on 1/13/2011 6:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
But then again...since we do not know the composition of this planet as well, we can't say for sure what happened and how it formed, and can only base hypothesis on what we know about the formation of our own solar system. I could only say what I said because of information we have now about planetary formations, but that could not be plausible as well when applied to other star systems. Certainly things can and most likely be different that what we know today with our knowledge. So back to square one :)


RE: Rocky, really?
By Belard on 1/12/2011 8:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
We have two basic classifications of planets.

Rockey (Earth / Mars / Mercury / Venus)
Gas (Jupiter / Saturn / Uranus / Neptune )


Dead Quasar
By ekv on 1/12/2011 4:02:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
likely because the black hole that powered it ran out of "food" (stellar matter).
What happens to the Quasar? does it compress to neutron star? or dwarf or something?

What happens to black hole? Does it cease to exist? Diminish? Just sit there waiting for it's gravity to draw more galaxies into its lair?




RE: Dead Quasar
By Pessimism on 1/12/2011 10:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
The black hole will bide its time, slowly drawing us in. It will then hold us hostage for ONE MILLION DOLLARS.


RE: Dead Quasar
By Sanity on 1/12/2011 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
A Quasar is not a stellar object...it's what they call the area of the accretion disk around a supermassive black hole when it is surrounded by huge (on a galactic scale) amounts of gas and dust. The gas and dust is all moving very fast and constantly compressing as it gets closer to the event horizon of the SMBH, and it starts to get so hot that it emits energy all across the electromagnetic spectrum. When the SMBH has captured all of the gas and dust in its vicinity, the quasar essentially powers down until more material is available. The black hole is still there in the center of those galaxies.


RE: Dead Quasar
By ekv on 1/12/2011 3:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
So the quasar powering down, or "deactivating" in such a short time means the black is likely on the larger side of supermassive? And all the little stars that were formed ... eventually will fall into SMBH. Does the SMBH accumulate gravity from all that was ingested ? (for wont of a better term). I.e. does it gain mass?


Hanny's Voorwerp
By borismkv on 1/11/2011 5:07:37 PM , Rating: 5
Totally using that as a band name :D




RE: Hanny's Voorwerp
By silverblue on 1/11/2011 5:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
+1 to that man.


Damn
By kyleb2112 on 1/11/2011 5:16:39 PM , Rating: 2
So Cthulhu isn't coming? Damn, I already bought the robes.




RE: Damn
By mmatis on 1/11/2011 7:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
He's already HERE! Where the heck have YOU been for the past two years?


RE: Damn
By GuinnessKMF on 1/11/2011 10:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I was sleeping.


Whew!
By Motoman on 1/11/2011 11:37:38 PM , Rating: 4
Well, it's certainly a good thing that the voorwerp, which is a 100,000 light-year-across clump of glowing gas, turned out to be non-hostile.

I mean, it could have gotten us in, like, 650 million years! Assuming it could move at the speed of light. Which of course is impossible...pshaw. It would have been here in 651 million years.

And then what would we have done? Game over, man! GAME OVER!




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki