You must log in or register to comment.

SkiGruffalo t1_j9tqk7v wrote

Oh yeah? Who's going to stop me from going there?


SteveMcQwark t1_j9u9tlt wrote

Space and time might have a word, and if not, then gravity will have the ultimate say (the radiation environment is also very likely highly disagreeable).


Demrezel t1_j9uehqh wrote

So you're saying there's a chance


NightHawkomen t1_j9ux0yi wrote

A very real chance. Forget the statistics, thats for mathematicians and they never space travel.


P2Mc28 t1_j9v1buc wrote

It's easy. 50/50. He either goes or he doesn't.


NightHawkomen t1_j9vu4co wrote

Hmm IDK 50/50 = 1/1 so 100% he is going or is that 100% not going? I feel like there should be a cat in a box somewhere to make it definitive.


Scrub_nin t1_j9vxljl wrote

Depends if he ties toast to the back of the cat to use as an endlessly rotating fuel source


Makenchi45 t1_j9wp3nz wrote

I feel like there should be a rainbow involved somewhere in that travel method.


Rikudou_Sage t1_j9wgci3 wrote

The cat says you've already been there as long as no one is looking.


Just_Michael1138 t1_j9wbr77 wrote

"Never tell me the odds!" --Corellian spacer saying, usually involving ridiculous odds and slim chances of survival


Quiggling t1_j9wvbr4 wrote

He has at least a 33 1/3% and that’s bad news for the forbidden planet


binzoma t1_j9wnz7v wrote

the nice thing is, we keep getting older and the forbidden planet stays basically the saaamme age


SirBardsalot t1_j9ux74u wrote

Oh you'll get there. Just not in a living state.


Demrezel t1_j9varg4 wrote

You don't even really need consciousness, pfft


urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_j9w0jx7 wrote

learn from the pam tree facing storms and hurricanes yet it grows taller with patience and resilience little grasshopper


DaBi5cu1t t1_j9uwgrv wrote

The Forbidden planet, in the system of doom, in the galaxy of no return.

Sounds nice.


StoopidestManOnEarth t1_j9uy0hy wrote

Oh sweet! You can join me on my trip. I'm taking my mineral collection and we can make petri dishes out of our armpit sweat. I've already got over 378 petri dishes going and I can't wait to see how yours compares to mine.

Once we get there, I'm going to set up my speaker system and play tibetan throat music while I mediate out loud.

I think we'll have the best of time, especially since it'll be just the two of us.


ChooglinOnDown t1_j9vohrf wrote

> I'm going to set up my speaker system and play tibetan throat music while I mediate out loud.

I think we might ride the same bus.


HDIC69420 t1_j9v37jf wrote

Can I buy in? This sounds like a stellar weekend


SuperFightingRobit t1_j9veyot wrote

Look, the last time a guy visited forbidden planet, he wound up as a kooky doctor who had the lasagna on a flight out of Chicago 30 years later


Specialist-Doctor-23 t1_j9w9p7w wrote

You better call the Krell and get a visa first or they'll send monsters from the ID to meet you.


Finnder_ t1_j9ya46f wrote

Forbidden Shmorshmidden. What are they gonna do, write a letter?


JasonP27 t1_j9wtnxz wrote

No one. But physics aren't a who. Physics will stop you.


itsRobbie_ t1_j9w74m9 wrote

It’s not a tiny star. I’d say it’s pretty average honestly. Some people might even say it’s a perfect size or even big!


FlummoxedFlumage t1_j9xif1k wrote

Listen, it’s what you do with it that counts.


PervertedOldMan t1_j9y8p99 wrote

What's important is this star and planet make the relationship work.


Brickleberried t1_j9uuuyc wrote

So "size" in this context means radius of the star vs. planet, not the mass, area, or volume.

I think calling it "forbidden" is very hyperbolic. It's at the extreme end of what we know, but it's not unreasonable for it to form as such under current planet formation theories given reasonable uncertainties and variability.


SolomonBlack t1_j9vb94g wrote

Well the objection isn’t any size relation but that under current models a Jupiter-type planet that close to this type of star “should” have boiled away before properly forming.

Ergo begs the question is this some Goldilocks scenario that is astronomically rare… or are we going to start finding these by the dozens and need to update our models.

Headline still very clickbait but the actual naming tracks with science’s bad habit of bad names getting out into the public sphere minus context.


Brickleberried t1_j9vc09x wrote

My first sentence is just my general complaint about space journalism that the word "size" is not clear because it could mean several things that are very different.

The paper itself admits that this could be the extreme end of our current models given known uncertainties and variabilities and therefore not "forbidden", but yeah, if they find a bunch of them, then we'll have to start tweaking models more.

In other words, good paper, bad headline and slightly hyperbolic article, as is typical for science journalism.


CromulentDucky t1_j9wv50w wrote

There was a meteorite this week that was 'the size of a Corgi and three times the weight of an elephant.' I still don't know what that means.


Mialayy t1_j9xzfo1 wrote

4 BABY elephants bro. Please if you cite someone do it properly. God damn it’s baby elephants aren’t they cute tho?


ciarenni t1_j9v3rtq wrote

I was going to say, white dwarf stars are very small (on the scale of space) but still have a good portion of their prior mass. It's very reasonable to assume that a planet could form around it, even if improbable.


Brickleberried t1_j9v87uu wrote

A white dwarf is a dead star that lost much of its mass though, so it's not really comparable. Gas giants will never form around a white dwarf, although secondary rocky planets might.


ciarenni t1_j9wf6oh wrote

Yeah, it wasn't the best example star but my point was that just because it's small doesn't mean anything about how much mass it has, which is the point that I feel like the headline was missing.


Brickleberried t1_j9zisc7 wrote

Radius of a main sequence star is proportional to the mass of the star. If you know the radius, you can pretty accurately get the mass. (It depends some on age and metallicity too, but not that much, as long as it hasn't evolved to a red giant yet.)

Planets, on the other hand, don't follow the rule nearly as well, especially for gas giants. Jupiter and a brown dwarf 80x the mass of Jupiter both have the same radius.


yousonuva t1_j9vegev wrote

>I think calling it "forbidden" is very hyperbolic

Yes well, it is


PhasmaFelis t1_ja0682l wrote

> So "size" in this context means radius of the star vs. planet, not the mass, area, or volume.

Thank you. It was so obnoxious that it didn't explain that.


GoofAckYoorsElf t1_j9yjb1d wrote

Uh volume is directly related to the radius


Brickleberried t1_j9zhq73 wrote

By r^3 , sure, but if a star is 4x the radius, it's 64x the volume, so whether you meant "4x the size" meaning radius or "4x the size" meaning volume, the two are very different.


ThisOnePlaysTooMuch t1_j9xjry5 wrote

You’re telling me the rock is going around a ball of nuclear fusion in way that is consistent with our understanding of how rocks go around balls of nuclear fusion? Fascinating. It’s just a catchy headline, isn’t it? I’m guessing the discovery isn’t too revealing?


Brickleberried t1_j9zig89 wrote

The discovery is very cool. I just dislike using "size" because it's unclear and dislike using "forbidden" because it sacrifices accuracy for sounding even cooler. An accurate headline that still sounds cool(ish) would be "Massive planet orbiting small red dwarf, an extreme mass ratio that challenges planet formation". I'm sure a professional could clean that up a bit without using the word "forbidden".

But it's still a very cool discovery.


JustAPerspective t1_j9zbcnj wrote


The idea that human theories of the universe have any inherent credibility is patently absurd - like an infant in the womb asserting how things work on other continents, based solely on their limited experiences under vastly different circumstances.

Everything humans "know" is a guess that might be wrong.

Every mistake we discover is an opportunity to celebrate how many more options there truly are in the universe.


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.


Kleanish t1_j9uxz47 wrote

What does this refute?


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


ShuRugal t1_j9w1xtu wrote

That only means that it requires permits many.


jokzard t1_j9v25o2 wrote

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


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.”


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.


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


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.


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.


GodLovePisces t1_j9zgvaz wrote

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


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...


AbandonedPlanet t1_j9ud3sv wrote

I mean, aren't gas giants just "failed" stars that never got big enough? Why is this so rare if binary star systems aren't?

Edit: notice how my comment is in the form of 2 questions and not statements? It's because I don't know what I'm talking about. I didn't think the words "failed star" would rile everyone up so much. I'm sorry to have upset everyone and I hope I can be forgiven.


Apprehensive_Note248 t1_j9ume7w wrote

Rare in that we haven't processed that many exoplanets relative to the number of stars we've been able to chart, and haven't seen this kind of pair yet with the exoplanets we have found.

Honestly, I roll my eyes at these kinds of descriptions as sensationalized garbage.


noonemustknowmysecre t1_j9uqq8n wrote

Part of me is happy that there's space news. Part of me is disgusted at the current state of quality in news in general. We're right next to the rack of tabloids declaring batboy was found on Gliese 581c.

I should start paying for a newspaper again or something.


snuggl3ninja t1_j9v96my wrote

Space and astrophysics are way more interesting than these headlines (for those who study and understand more of it). If these headlines grab one kids attention and makes them turn to study it as a career path or hobby then it's done its job. We don't want dense scientific papers to have to also attract the next wave of scientists, that's what these bait headlines are for. For example in these posts the headline brings you in. To either learn more or educate people on the actual science. It's a win/win.


lordnacho666 t1_j9ulv5b wrote

So judgemental. Aspiring star is fair enough. We're all working on getting somewhere.


Brickleberried t1_j9uvfrb wrote

I don't like calling gas giant "failed stars". There are two ways to define a planet (at the high mass end; edit: 3 ways, see lower comment):

  1. If it formed from core accretion in a disk, it's a planet. (Conversely, if it formed from disk instability and gravitational collapse, it's not a planet.)
  2. If it's under the mass required to fuse deuterium (~13 Jupiter masses), it's a planet.

Both definitions have pros and cons. Since we typically think of gas giants as planets that formed via core accretion, I wouldn't call any of them "failed stars" since they form completely differently than actual stars.

However, if a nominal gas giant formed via disk instability/gravitational collapse, but doesn't burn regular hydrogen, then "failed star" is appropriate.


khinzaw t1_j9uzn4w wrote

It's brown dwarfs specifically that are failed stars.


Chaotickane t1_j9v6c48 wrote

Brown Dwarfs are essentially high mass gas giants though. That's the issue, we don't have enough knowledge about them and the limit to which they transition to stars to properly classify them better. They are difficult to find and observe because they don't shine bright comparatively and we only have hypothetical limits to what mass is necessary to ignite.

But yes, lower end mass gas giants like what is in our solar system are definitely not close enough to be considered failed stars in any regard.


Brickleberried t1_j9v7r5t wrote

But even so, the definition of brown dwarf isn't necessarily set in stone. It definitely can't fuse normal hydrogen, but do you define the lower limit by the physical process, by formation mechanism, or by observational feasibility?

  • Physical process: must be fusing deuterium? It's a nice physical process to define by. However, it's basically impossible to tell observationally whether a (potential) brown dwarf is burning deuterium. There are no outward signs. You can often measure mass, and the deuterium burning mass is approximately 13 Jupiter masses, but it depends on metallicity and age. Therefore, if you find an object that's around the limit, you're not sure what to call it without knowing metallicity or age, which is harder to do. Additionally, an older 13 M_J brown dwarf won't be fusing deuterium anymore, so does that mean it started as a brown dwarf and then became a planet when it burned all the deuterium in its core? That's not very satisfying.

  • Formation mechanism: formed via disk instability/gravitational collapse (as opposed to core accretion)? There is very likely overlap in masses between high-mass core accretion objects and low-mass gravitational collapse objects. You could therefore have like a 10 M_J brown dwarf via gravitational collapse that has never fused deuterium, but a 15 M_J planet formed via core accretion that fuses deuterium. That's not very satisfying either to have an overlap in mass ranges.

  • Observational: use 13 M_J as your cutoff? It's reasonable since that is generally the most observational characteristic that can somewhat distinguish the above scenarios. However, that means some your brown dwarfs formed via core accretion, while some planets formed via gravitational collapse. Similarly, it means that some of your brown dwarfs never fused deuterium, and some of your planets do fuse deuterium. Physically, it doesn't make sense to have either, but observationally, it's a very nice cutoff. Still, this isn't very satisfying either.

As far as I'm aware as a PhD in astronomy in exoplanets, there's not really an agreed-upon consensus among these three choices of definition.


saanity t1_j9v2rhp wrote

Every astronomy enthusiast gets mad when you call gas giants a failed star. That's like saying an asteroid is a failed planet. It is what it is and has an important place in our universe.


atomfullerene t1_j9w9sac wrote

It's also thought that stars and planets form in fundamentally different ways, so an actual failed star like a brown dwarf should be different from a planet, even one of about the same size.


kompootor t1_j9wbnrm wrote

As I found out not too long ago, that debate was already mostly settled when I learned it and is long-settled now -- gas giants have a icy-rocky planetary core formed in the accretion disk along with the other rocky planets, and the much larger mass that they build up allows them to hold an enormous atmosphere during accretion while the rocky planets will bleed or evaporate most or all of theirs away. (See perhaps NASA's brief on planet formation -- I feel like Wikipedia's article is skirting the gas giant issue so probably has some conflict between editors.)

A failed star is a brown dwarf, which can form as part of a binary just like any stellar binary. The reason this particular system isn't that is that they say it's specifically a Jupiter-like gas giant. Further, they obviously got the mass since afaik methods of finding exoplanets will always get the orbit (by wobble at least), and the article says recorded the light during transit, so they would have calculated the radius; thus they'd be able to calculate the planet's density. Now, the density of Jupiter is 1.33 g/cm^3. Compare a brown dwarf, which as a failed star has no (or very little) core fusion to provide pressure that counteracts the enormous compression that's from the gravity of its enormous mass (about .07 solar masses, which is still huge) -- it is thus degenerate matter (in the core at least), as in a white dwarf, and at least in one case the average density was calculated at 108 g/cm^3. There would be plenty of other evidence to line up too -- I'm sure they weighed the possibility that it could be a brown dwarf, or at the very least a very unusual type of planet that must be tested for everything.

(And just for fun, the densities of main-sequence and off-sequence stars are all "known" (more or less -- it's not pure hydrogen or pure clean fusion), because math. I can't find a simple list, but you can find masses and radii -- anyway, as a type-M star, it is about 5 g/cm^3; compare the Sun at about 1.4 g/cm^3 -- more mass means more pressure inward, but also more fusion so more pressure outward,(See Thompson, Astr 1144 Lect.10, OSU)


airplane001 t1_j9xc8wr wrote

I think the difference between gas giants and the smallest brown dwarfs is their origin. Planets are formed in the proto-planetary disk while stars are formed in a nebula as the center of a system


JustAPerspective t1_j9zepko wrote

>I mean, aren't gas giants just "failed" stars that never got big enough?

No one knows.

See, the article talks about how previous theories are no longer necessarily applicable - which means everything we've been assuming about this stuff now gets rechecked, because right there in front of us is proof that what we believed before... ain't so.

It disrupts the presumed accuracy of every model that has relied on the previous interpretation. All speculation that relied on the previous theories for validity is now suspect, and how much of a rewrite will need to happen is yet to be determined.

Which is a constant in all facets of science, just btw. Every discovery, from the coronal loop optical illusion theory to the actual diameter of Terra's atmosphere, to the true electromagnetic strength of Sol, even the existence of tectonic plates... are updates to what humans believed was completely true.

"Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow." - K, MIB

Some minds refuse to accept new data if it contradicts what they believed before. Other minds are eager to accept and integrate new concepts. Reckon we're all finding the happy balance between both guidances?

Unsolicited Advice: Don't worry about the emotional stability of internet randos - if they're adults, they know it's their job to regulate their own feelings. If they're children, they'll blame you whenever they're unhappy anyway.

Your zen should be far more precious than internet rando opinions. 🖖


A40 t1_j9vn79r wrote

It's clickbait headlines (and stories) like this that make the pile of pulp it is.


Finnder_ t1_j9yadch wrote

Wait you mean the guys who refer to other planetary systems as "solar systems" aren't the most accurate space reporters?


Leather-Mundane t1_j9ul75y wrote

I'm only surprised it's taken them this long to find something like this.


Hot_Egg5840 t1_j9uz30p wrote

Is there any more proof needed that can't be taken seriously with these headlines and articles saying "forbidden" and "should not exist"? Tabloid trash.


John_Tacos t1_j9tx0zk wrote

Wouldn’t this be expected? X mass condensed to a ball makes a y mass star or two objects with y mass.


DasHundLich t1_j9xxb06 wrote

Stars usually blow away the atmospheres of gas giants if they get too close which is the issue here


SlowCrates t1_j9v1e4n wrote

Is it Furia?

Riddick: "It's not hard to hide on a planet if it takes you 300 years to drive around the equator."


kamarsh79 t1_j9xg9cf wrote

The size of the star doesn’t matter if the star knows what to do.


Jgflight86 t1_j9ul87n wrote

The tiny star: It's cold in space! There was shrinkage!


QBin2017 t1_j9usmrw wrote

We know so little about these Superstructures.

Quick, send for Emmerich!


MotoRandom t1_j9uz0tz wrote

I just hope there's a robot that can make booze.


Mr_Lumbergh t1_j9volhf wrote

I’m curious if the barycenter is still in the star, the article doesn’t mention it.


Vatnos t1_j9xob8d wrote

The barycenter of the Sun and Jupiter is--surprisingly not inside the Sun, so I think we can guess the answer.


Mr_Lumbergh t1_j9xrt92 wrote

The system is also considerably more complex, so…

Previous question still stands.


MasonCO91 t1_j9x7lj0 wrote

All articles from space .com should be banned from this sub. They are filled with garbage


Obiwan_Salami t1_j9v0ze7 wrote

so how is "a Jupiter-sized planet orbiting a tiny star that is only four times the size of the solar system gas giant." and "The extrasolar planet, or "exoplanet," orbits a red dwarf " newsworthy?


ThisOnePlaysTooMuch t1_j9xjkxy wrote

What are the implications? Uniquely low orbit? Fast orbit? I’m a layman but I’m curious as to why this means something.


Writer10 t1_j9upaxz wrote

You can’t tell me what to do! You’re not my Mom! stomps away, slams bedroom door


jugalator t1_j9vgkvo wrote

Maybe it doesn't even belong to the solar system so that it doesn't have to comply with formation theories, and it was just a caught rogue planet.