Density of Gliese 581 d: What's the Real Number?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the estimated density of Gliese 581 d, which is reported as approximately 730 kg/m^3, raising questions about its accuracy given its size and mass. The user notes that according to Wiki, Gliese 581 d has a radius about 1.96 times that of Earth and a mass roughly 7.7 times greater, suggesting a density similar to Earth's. However, the listed density appears inconsistent with these dimensions, prompting a search for more authoritative data. The conversation highlights the challenges of estimating planetary density, particularly the assumption of uniform density throughout the planet. Overall, the need for reliable citations and data on Gliese 581 d's radius and density is emphasized.
DaveC426913
Gold Member
Messages
23,838
Reaction score
7,833
I'm trying to find a reasonable estimate of the density of Gliese 581 d (not c).

According to Wiki, d is ~1.96x the radius of Earth and ~7.7x the mass. This makes for a density very near Earth's (2^3=8). Yet they then go on to list its density as 730kg/m^3 or 0.73g/cm^3 - almost as rarefied as Saturn.

Can anyone point me at some more authoritative numbers? I know we're only estimating, but clearly one of those three numbers r,d or m is spurious.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
DaveC426913 said:
I'm trying to find a reasonable estimate of the density of Gliese 581 d (not c).

According to Wiki, d is ~1.96x the radius of Earth and ~7.7x the mass. This makes for a density very near Earth's (2^3=8). Yet they then go on to list its density as 730kg/m^3 or 0.73g/cm^3 - almost as rarefied as Saturn.

Can anyone point me at some more authoritative numbers? I know we're only estimating, but clearly one of those three numbers r,d or m is spurious.

They all could be right due to a few things. When you calculate the density via M/V you are basically assuming a constant density throughout the entire planet, but usually that is a decent for a very rough approximation.

I notice the article you mention is lacking citations on both the radius and the density, so it is possible those are flawed as well.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top