Names for Exoplanets

As I’d mentioned earlier, many exoplanets currently have names like Kepler-7b, HD 189733b, GJ 1214b, Gliese 581g, Kapteyn b, Gliese 667 Cc, … Why not names like Wu Tang Clan or Ghostface or Alderaan or Gallifrey? In 2014, the International Astronomical Union decided to change that by having a contest to name some exoplanets.

The IAU first came up with a list of 305 well-studied exoplanets that had been discovered before the end of 2008, exoplanets that are members of 250 exoplanetary systems. Several astronomy clubs and other such organizations then applied to the IAU to become registered voters in this contest. The accepted ones then selected 20 exoplanetary systems to vote on, and they then submitted sets of names for them. In 2015, the IAU had a public vote on which name set, and then announced the winners. The Approved Names, The Process, The ExoWorlds, The Proposals, and The Statistics.

I don’t know how well this contest turned out, or whether the IAU is willing to have another one. But if the IAU ever does, then there are now a lot more planets to choose from, like the Kepler ones and TRAPPIST-1.

Some names and details below the fold.

Continue reading


Stars and exoplanets: where do their names come from?

JPL | Videos | Q and Alien: What’s in an Exoplanet Name?, also at ▶ Q&Alien: What’s in an Exoplanet Name? – YouTube

Why do exoplanets have weird-looking names like these? Names like:

Kepler-7b, HD 189733b, GJ 1214b, Gliese 581g, Kapteyn b, Gliese 667 Cc, …

Why not names like Wu Tang Clan or Ghostface or Alderaan or Gallifrey? For starters, astronomers have discovered a *lot* of exoplanets, and giving them individual names would be a lot of trouble. Also, their names have a certain descriptive value:
(star) + (planet letter)

The star is typically (catalog) + (number):
Kepler-7 is the 7th star that the Kepler team discovered to have planets.
HD 189733 is the 189733’th star in the Henry Draper star catalog

The first planet named is small-letter b, because “a” is reserved for its star. They are named in order of discovery, and if several are discovered at the same time, they are then named in order of distance. Stars, however, have capital letters: A, B, C, … in order of brightness or discovery.
Continue reading

Planets of Other Suns

Exoplanets, planets of other stars. How did we discover them?

It took a long time to do so, with plenty of false alarms along the way. I am old enough to remember when Peter van de Kamp’s 1960’s and 1970’s claimed discovery of planets around Barnard’s Star was taken very seriously. But it was later discovered that maintaining his telescope caused the largest observed effects, and that discovery is now discredited. In 1991, Andrew Lyne, M. Bailes, and S.L. Shemar claimed that they had discovered a planet orbiting pulsar PSR 1829-10, a planet with orbit period half a year. But they then discovered that they had made a small error in their accounting for the Earth’s position, and they retracted their discovery.

The first confirmed discovery of an exoplanet was in 1992, when Alexander Wolszczan and Dale Frail discovered two planets orbiting pulsar PSR 1257+12. This was followed by a third one in 1994. The first one for a “normal” sort of star was in 1995, when Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz discovered a planet around the Sunlike star 51 Pegasi.

These discoveries were followed by numerous other ones, and some 3500 planets are now considered confirmed to exist. In particular, the Kepler space telescope’s observations have yielded a large number of discoveries, about 2/3 of all known exoplanets.

More below the fold.

Continue reading

The Lovely Lost Landscapes of Luna

That is the title of one of Isaac Asimov’s science essays, collected in his book Is Anyone There?

“The Lovely Lost Landscapes of Luna” was published in 1966, but its overall conclusions are anything but out-of-date. IA grew up with early 20th cy. science fiction, and much of it featured lots of adventures on other Solar-System planets. I recall that someone once claimed that the first SF writer to break out of the Solar System was likely E.E. “Doc” Smith, with his Skylark of Space (1928).

A curious consequence of telescopic observations and acceptance of heliocentrism was the belief that all the Solar System’s planets were inhabited by sentient entities and whole biotas of organisms. In the eighteenth century, that was a very common belief, on the ground that God would not want to waste a world. But in the nineteenth century, some scientists started getting skeptical about that, and by the mid twentieth century, their skepticism had become mainstream. Most of the Solar System seemed very hostile to all but the hardiest microbes, and often to them also. Then spacecraft were sent out, and they returned an abundance of evidence of how hostile the Solar System is.

There was the possibility of planets of other stars, but that was not enough for Isaac Asimov, and he had grown up on the abundantly-inhabited Solar System of 1930’s science-fiction stories.

No, no, the stars are not enough. It’s the solar system we want, the solar system they took away from us thirty years ago.

The solar system we can never have again.

Though since then, hundreds of exoplanets have been discovered. As of 2017 October 5, NASA Exoplanet Archive lists 3529 confirmed planets of other stars, and some of these planets are almost Earthlike.

How it happened is below the fold.

Continue reading

Sixty Years after Sputnik

On 4 October 1957, the Russians launched Sputnik 1 (“Satellite 1”) into orbit. Its full name was Prosteyshiy Sputnik 1, “Elementary Satellite 1”.

It was 58 cm / 23 in across, about the size of a beach ball, and it weighed 83.6 kg / 184 lb. It had four antennas sticking out of it, and a battery-powered radio transmitter with power 1 watt.

It went into orbit atop a modified R-7 ICBM, going into low Earth orbit: 215 km / 134 mi by 939 km / 583 mi with a period of 96.2 minutes.

It transmitted for 21 days, until 26 October 1957, and it stayed in orbit until it burned up in the atmosphere on 4 January 1958.

Its broadcasts, an endlessly repeated beep, were picked up all over the world by amateur radio operators, though the satellite itself was only borderline visible without a telescope.

It wasn’t much, but it was startling. Large numbers of people watched this first artificial satellite and also listened to it. Many Americans came to believe that their nation was getting behind in the Cold War, since the Russians could now send their nuclear bombs to anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

It also did not help that the Russians successfully launched a second satellite a month later, on 3 November 1957. It carried a passenger, the dog Laika, though that dog soon died. It certainly did not help that the US’s attempt to launch a satellite into orbit on 6 December 1957 was a spectacular failure. But the US succeeded in doing so on 31 January 1958.

However, President Eisenhower and his aides stayed cool. They were following the Russians’ rocketry developments with pictures taken from U-2 spyplanes that flew high above the Soviet Union. So they were not very surprised when the Soviet Union got a satellite into orbit.

I’ve even seen the theory that Eisenhower had a reason for liking the Russians going first. He wanted to establish a principle of international law, that outer space is like international waters rather than sovereign territory, like airspace. He was concerned that if the US went first, the Russians would consider a US satellite flying over their territory to be a violation of their sovereignty, just like a US spyplane doing so. So when Sputnik 1 traveled over US territory, he decided to accept it.

The US increased funding for scientific research, adding to the National Science Foundation’s funding and starting the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, now DARPA with Defense in front), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The US also made efforts to improve education, with its National Defense Education Act.

The “New Math” also came out of that period, but it was an abysmal flop. It introduced a lot of abstraction far too early, IMO. Though mathematicians love abstraction, non-mathematicians often find it difficult, and math curricula should be designed with that in mind.

The US has faced challenges that some people have compared to Sputnik, like Japan in the 1980’s, but those challenges did not present the visceral level of threat that Sputnik did. Sputnik was a demonstration that the Soviet Union could send nuclear bombs to anywhere in the US in half an hour. Japan did not pose nearly that level of threat. It was at most “We will dig your graves” rather than “we will destroy you”, those two interpretations of Nikita Khrushchev’s “We will bury you”.


The Most Famous Negative Result

In my previous entry, I had discussed how research in the harder sciences tends to get more negative results than research in the softer sciences. Here, I will discuss what is one of the most famous negative results of all of the history of science, if not the most famous.

The Michelson-Morley experiment.

To understand why it is so important, consider that by the late nineteenth century, two enormously successful physical paradigms had emerged. The first was Newtonian mechanics, encompassing Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion, his law of gravity, and some related theories. It successfully accounted for the motions of the larger bodies in the Solar System, even enabling the discovery of a planet: Neptune. The second was electricity, magnetism, light, and their interactions, collectively electromagnetism. They were successfully unified by the work of James Clerk Maxwell, working from a lot of previous work on electric and magnetic fields and their sources and interrelationships.

But these two paradigms could not be reconciled.

Continue reading

Science: Hard vs. Soft

For nearly 200 years, many people have long had an intuitive sense of a hierarchy of the sciences, from “hard”, well-established, rigorous, and precise, to “soft”, the opposite.

  • Physical sciences: hard
  • Biological sciences: medium
  • Social sciences: soft

This intuition is supported by a wide range of assessments and measurements, and a recent one is in PLOS ONE: “Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences, with greater softness meaning more positive reported results.

Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values.

Author Daniele Fanelli continues in his paper,

… in some fields of research (which we will henceforth indicate as “harder”) data and theories speak more for themselves, whereas in other fields (the “softer”) sociological and psychological factors – for example, scientists’ prestige within the community, their political beliefs, their aesthetic preferences, and all other non-cognitive factors – play a greater role in all decisions made in research, from which hypothesis should be tested to how data should be collected, analyzed, interpreted and compared to previous studies.

Continue reading