Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IdeasOfOne t1_j9tjw5f wrote

I love how new discoveries keep challenging the theories we currently have. Show how little is known about the space and how much we have yet to learn.

205

Kleanish t1_j9uxz47 wrote

What does this refute?

30

Junkererer t1_j9vcfix wrote

Kanodia explained in the statement. "Based on our nominal current understanding of planet formation, TOI-5205b should not exist; it is a 'forbidden' planet."

From the article

56

ShuRugal t1_j9w1xtu wrote

That only means that it requires permits many.

18

jokzard t1_j9v25o2 wrote

Probably something about how stars need mass for something to orbit it or something. I'm not a expert.

15

That_Phony_King t1_j9v1usy wrote

“Though on average this class of stars hosts more planets around them than other star types, it was previously believed that their formation makes them unlikely to be orbited by gas giants. The discovery of this exoplanet  —  designated TOI 5205b  —  by astronomers using NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) telescope challenges that concept.”

1

cesarmac t1_j9vdkwd wrote

I don't think it refutes anything, its just an anomaly. Basically physics tells us that due to the size of the star a planet should have a near impossible probability of forming.

But here we are looking at one so it just adds more mystery to how things in the macro scale work.

1

whitneyanson t1_j9vhz0o wrote

"This planet should not exist based on our current understanding of planet formation."

- Carnegie Science astronomer Shubham Kanodia

​

"I disagree."

- A random on Reddit

46

Cranktique t1_j9w4urf wrote

It hasn’t refuted anything because they haven’t confirmed anything. JWST is the next step to see if they can determine star / planet composition and therefore mass to see if it does still fit into our current models or not, and even then it won’t be definitive. Even the article states that it has the potential to challenge our understanding, they did not say it refutes our understanding as we do not have enough information yet to make that claim.

−3

cesarmac t1_j9vjmte wrote

The fact that he is saying "can't" in this situation is pretty disingenuous. The probability of a planet of it's size forming around a star that small are just very small but not impossible.

This wouldn't even be something entirely new if you throw in all star types into the mix. We have discovered planets orbiting neutron stars before that likely formed after the star collapsed into its neutron dense state.

But again, it's not refuting anything. The probability is still very small that saying "it wouldn't" form isn't necessarily a lie but we shouldn't always deal in absolutes when it comes to this stuff.

−5

GodLovePisces t1_j9zgvaz wrote

So true 👍 There is so much out there, that is a mystery.

1

isleepinahammock t1_j9weesq wrote

I wonder if binary gas giants are possible. Think two Jupiter-sized planets orbiting around a star. For some reason, I find that idea vaguely terrifying...

−1