B Barnard's Star, 6 Light-Years Away, May Have Cold SuperEarth

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter CygnusX-1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cold Star
AI Thread Summary
Barnard's Star, located 6 light-years away, may host a cold SuperEarth with a mass at least three times that of Earth, orbiting at a distance of 0.4 AU and a temperature around -270°F. The star itself is a red dwarf with a low mass and luminosity, exhibiting a rotation period of 140 days. Previous claims of planets around Barnard's Star in the 1960s were later debunked, but current research suggests a 99% confidence in the existence of a planet, pending further validation over the next few years. The detection process has faced challenges due to the star's activity, which complicates the radial velocity signal. The ongoing investigation aims to confirm whether the newly detected planet will remain or be disproven.
CygnusX-1
Messages
124
Reaction score
90
The planet:

Distance from star: 0.4 AU (comparable to Mercury)
Orbital period: 233 days (comparable to Venus)
Mass: at least 3 Earth masses
Temperature: -270 F (comparable to Saturn)

Barnard's Star:

Distance from us: 6 light-years; second closest star system to Sun after Alpha Centauri
Spectral type: M3.5 V (red dwarf)
Mass: 0.16 Suns
Diameter: 0.18 Suns
Luminosity: 0.0033 Suns
Temperature: 3280 K
Rotation period: 140 days

Link: Nature

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/a-chilly-super-earth-may-orbit-barnards-star/
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara and Drakkith
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Likely a sort of very small gas/ice giant with super-dense hydrogen atmosphere. It would be helium and nitrogen enriched due hydrogen loss to space during last 10 billion years, but i doubt the atmosphere pressure can be below Venusian level (90 bar)
 
Back in the 1960s-70s, didn't an astronomer claim to have detected a planet around Barnard's star; but later, others insisted it was a false detection?
 
chasrob said:
Back in the 1960s-70s, didn't an astronomer claim to have detected a planet around Barnard's star; but later, others insisted it was a false detection?

Yes, that detection was proven false. But they think they have it right this time. Time will tell.
 
chasrob said:
Back in the 1960s-70s, didn't an astronomer claim to have detected a planet around Barnard's star; but later, others insisted it was a false detection?

Yes, that was Peter van de Kamp, who claimed Barnard's Star had two giant planets akin to Jupiter and Saturn.

Astronomers George Gatewood and Heinrich Eichhorn later cast doubt on those planets. The story appears in chapter 5 of Ken Croswell's book Planet Quest. The full account is much too long to quote here, but here's one especially entertaining paragraph:

Eichhorn thought the project a bad idea. Said Eichhorn, "I asked him, `Who was the second person who flew solo across the Atlantic?' He said he didn't know. And I told him he'd be as well remembered as that person." That's because Eichhorn was certain that Gatewood would simply repeat van de Kamp's work. "I fully expected the planets to be confirmed," said Eichhorn. "I hadn't the slightest doubt. Look at van de Kamp's original papers: they're perfectly convincing that the effect is there."

---from Planet Quest by Ken Croswell, page 95.

The new discovery may or may not hold up. Time will tell.
 
CygnusX-1 said:
The new discovery may or may not hold up. Time will tell.
The Barnard`s star radial velocity signal is very noisy due star activity typical for small red dwarfs - what`s why the discovery was late despite proximity of the star itself and vast amount of resources used for discovery. The current candidate planet confidence is about 99% though, and it will either vanish or reach 99.9% in 3-4 years.
 
phyzguy said:
Yes, that detection was proven false. But they think they have it right this time. Time will tell.
Is it possible that the "proven false" part may have been wrong?
 
bob012345 said:
Is it possible that the "proven false" part may have been wrong?

The prediction is that a cyclic pattern will be there. If it is periodically not there then it was wrong.
 
stefan r said:
The prediction is that a cyclic pattern will be there. If it is periodically not there then it was wrong.
What's false, that there is no planets or just that there is no confidence van de Kamp detected them?
 
Back
Top