Talk:Fomalhaut b

A news item involving Fomalhaut b was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 November 2008.

Wikipedia

Contradiction

This article contradicts itself, at the top it says it orbits at the radius of Uranus, at the bottom it says at the radius of Eris. Jamie|C 23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't contradict itself, but itwas badly worded. The first time was the position relative to the inner edge of the debris disk, the second time it was the orbital radius. The comparison of the distance between the inner edge of the disk and a planet's orbital radius probably didn't help either: comparing the separation between orbits with an orbital radius isn't going to make visualising what is going on particularly easy. I've reworded it to make things clearer. Icalanise (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I know real distance is 119 AU. I'm talking about this phrase: "Fomalhaut b is an extrasolar planet orbiting the star Fomalhaut at a distance of approximately 115 AU". Check here please and change: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/11/13_exoplanet.shtml. 62.140.253.9 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (member from russian wikipedia)[reply]

The potential confusion here is whether we're talking about the current planet-star separation, or the semimajor axis of the orbit: according to the discovery paper, the semimajor axis of its likely orbit is 115 AU, however the current distance from planet to star is 119 AU. Icalanise (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate designations

Can someone provide a reliable source for the alternate designations? For example, does any source actually refer to the planet as "Alpha Piscis Austrinus b"? (Plus I thought the genitive case of "Piscis Austrinus" was "Piscis Austrini"...) Icalanise (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I propose swapping File:Fomalhaut with Disk Ring and extrasolar planet b.jpg and File:Fomalhaut planet.jpg so that the former is in the infobox. I think the actual picture demonstrating its discovery is more interesting, and more striking, than the painting and deserves more prominence. Any objections? Olaf Davis (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it! Icalanise (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That image makes no sense. Is it showing a tiny planet skimming over the surface of a gigantic star ? At the radius of Uranus, or Eris ? Or is it showing the view of the planet, with the star in the background, and some little moon of the planet ?Eregli bob (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed

From the The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia I get the impression that Fomalhaut b is pretty much confirmed, not unconfirmed. Time to update, perhaps? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fomalhaut b is not confirmed at all. It has only been imaged at optical wavelengths, not in the infrared. A recent paper states that the observations are more consistent with that of a dust cloud, not a planet. Martin Cash (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you were right that it was not imaged in the infrared - but it is NOW confirmed that the dust conglomeration around this planet is, indeed, around a planet. Thayne Currie et al., "Direct Imaging Confirmation and Characterization of a Dust-Enshrouded Candidate Exoplanet Orbiting Fomalhaut". - finally.

That said: I approve of your skepticism, and I agree that before this latest paper we just didn't know. Thanks for keeping some discipline around here--Zimriel (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast - about a day after that one hit the arXiv, there is now [1] - apparently it is still consistent with the hypothesis that this is a dust cloud without an anchoring planet. The controversy over the nature of Fom b remains. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this abstract (and now the paper too), and the abstract contains this: "we detect Fomalhaut b for the first time at the short wavelength of 0.43microns". The question of whether b exists, which is what Rursus originally asked, is settled; it's a bound clump of something that is genuinely in orbit, not a chance clump of dust and gas that just happened to appear on the images like the "face on Mars".

What remains is the question of what b is: a "massive planet" or some other "object". "Planet" seems more likely and most astronomers have been going with that. But I agree that we should at least mention that the alternative is possible. --Zimriel (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big changes

Hi 69.18.245.74! I can't argue with what you did - it's all pretty much what was on the article before now, except ... different. Do you have another Wiki handle or a talk page? --Zimriel (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Hi: Now I do. It's this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

orbital period

see here: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2013/01/text/
Mr. Kalas, the discoverer, calculated the new and corrected the period from ~870 to 2,000 years.
S. Dobrick 77.185.179.134 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - updated the infobox to include the newly calculated orbital period (2,000 years) - w/ several relevant references - entirely ok to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit

Judging by the NASA press release which gives periastron q and apastron Q of 4.6 and 27 billion miles respectively, the semimajor axis a and eccentricity e would be given by:

$a={\frac {Q+q}{2}}\approx 170\mathrm {\ AU}$ and $e={\frac {Q-q}{Q+q}}\approx 0.7$

The orbital elements in the infobox look more appropriate for the non-belt crossing orbit. 84.73.25.195 (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The updated orbital elements are now available on arXiv. [2] 46.126.77.137 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Characteristics

Should we remove this entire section since it was speculatively written based on data that is now quite superseded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autkm (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right. If nobody objects, I'll do it in 48 hours, or if you want to do it right now, feel free to do so. Having read through the section, it appears to contain nothing but "if xxx, then yyy" with no evidence to back up the xxx part. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the paragraph on formation mechanisms, the current paragraph is based on measurements from refereed publications, which are specifically noted for each statement. Thus, the note about the section being outdated has been removed. For instance, the brightness ratio for Fomalhaut b (~2.7x10^-10) found by Kalas et al. (2008) is about the same (to within 10-25%, ~ within measurement errors) as can be inferred from subsequent publications like Currie et al. (2012). Likewise, evidence for Fomalhaut b's light being scattered starlight has been verified through multiple publications; mass limits for Fomalhaut b based on comparing its infrared non-detections to models mapping between the planet's luminosity and its mass (given an age) are also current, etc.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fomalhaut b. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fomalhaut "b" is not a planet

Source; no freely accessible paper yet. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this article needs a complete overhaul in light of these recent observations. For the time being, I added a warning in the article that leads to this talk page section. Renerpho (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the paper: New HST data and modeling reveal a massive planetesimal collision around Fomalhaut (abstract only, full text behind paywall); and here are another press release, and the Hubblesite release. Renerpho (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LiveScience article: Mysterious 'disappearing' exoplanet was just a big cloud of asteroid trash, study suggests Renerpho (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first paper that suggested that Formalhaut b might be the result of a collision between large asteroids, published in 2012 (but not taken particularly seriously at the time): Fomalhaut b: Independent Analysis of the Hubble Space Telescope Public Archive Data Renerpho (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now on arXiv SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in The New York Times,^[1] besides PNAS.^[2] - hope this helps - Drbogdan (talk) 12:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Until the present discussion is better clarified, seems worthwhile to add the following edit to the lede => On April 20, 2020, astronomers reported that Fomalhaut b, although initially identified as one of the first exoplanets to be directly imaged, may be debris from a collision of asteroids instead.^[1]^[2] - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/ce the edit of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Andrews, Robin Goerge (April 20, 2020). "The Case of the Disappearing Exoplanet - Fomalhaut b was one of the first planets around another star to be directly imaged by telescopes. Some astronomers now say it was a cloud of asteroid debris". The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2020.
^ ^a ^b Gáspár, András; Rieke, George H. (April 20, 2020). "New HST data and modeling reveal a massive planetesimal collision around Fomalhaut". PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1912506117. Retrieved April 21, 2020.

This section title is a significant overstatement. The article in question is being heavily debated amongst experts, including those who have reduced the same data. One public example is here: http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/index.php/fomalhaut/ , where the author argues that later-epoch data do not show that a) Fomalhaut b is extended and b) is variable (e.g. fading). These two findings disagree with the published article, though in fairness they do not appear in a peer-reviewed article yet. No doubt, debate over the nature of Fomalhaut b will be renewed, not cut off. It is also not correct to say that the asteroid collision model was never taken seriously: it was (see Galicher et al. 2013; Kenyon et al. 2014). Certainly some mention of the new finding in the main text is warranted, but the main description of Fomalhaut b as "an extrasolar object and *candidate* planet" seems perfectly reasonable, especially given the varying positions in recent literature 2632cgn (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and rewritten some things in light of recent developments. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 15:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a slight overstatement for now. For a contentious object like this one, corroboration is needed 2632cgn (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA Exoplanet Archive has removed Fomalhaut "b". SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the first sentence still say "confirmed"? If anything, it's clear that the true nature of this object is not clear yet, which means it's unconfirmed. LukeCEL (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The object has been visually seen, so it is confirmed to exist (have existed?). ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 15:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only debris and not a planet?

There's something going on. --84.157.91.183 (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive planetesimals" ≠ "asteroids"?

Some people and news outlets refer to this as a collision between "asteroids". Is this misleading? I don't think the term "asteroid" is used in the referenced paper. -- DewiMorgan (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "asteroid" usually means any orbiting space rock smaller than a planet, including dwarf planets. In colloquial usage for the Sun's solar system, it's usually restricted to the warmer objects in the inner solar system. Planetesimal usually means "a planet in formation" or "an object that could become a planet". ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to main star

CLOSED

Reject merging of these article(s) as per CONSENSUS. Although there is some agreement that best practice would be to merge the planet/orbital object article(s) into the parent stars, there are notable exceptions to this concept. This case would be one of those exceptions. Consensus indicates that these two articles should remain separate for now. Infobox status should be a separate discussion, or possible guideline-RfC. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Non-Administrative closure[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The planet is disproven now, and unless it is an exceptional case then it would not make sense to have an article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; I'd consider Fomalhaut b to have the same level of notability as Alpha Centauri Bb. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support; and then discuss merging Alpha Centauri Bb, too. Leaning oppose (changed vote, by OP's own argument - it is an exceptional case) Renerpho (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'd be less opposed to merging. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear (I probably don't need to say this): My proposal is to merge Alpha Centauri Bb with Alpha Centauri. This would have to be discussed separately at Talk:Alpha_Centauri_Bb, we can't decide that here. Renerpho (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Cen Bb already had a merge proposal, and they kept it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at the discussion for Alpha Cen Bb, there are some valid points. I think the Fomalhaut b article would have to be shortened if we go ahead with the merger, and some of the detail would be lost. That may be a good reason to keep the article as it is. And unlike Alpha Cen Bb, we do know that Fomalhaut b does exist, it is a real phenomenon (and a very unusual one), it just isn't a planet. Having slept over it, I am leaning "oppose". Renerpho (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will remove the infobox, as with Alpha Centauri Bb. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least part of it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I will be removing the planet categories. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to remove what's left of the infobox. All the information in it is valid and relevant, as far as I can tell. This is different from Alpha Cen Bb, because Fomalhaut b does actually exist. I think we should keep the infobox as it is now. Renerpho (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then change it for another one. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What one? SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about Infobox astronomical event? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current infobox may still be the best fit. Template:Infobox_astronomical_event doesn't allow to specify discovery circumstances and orbital characteristics, which are among the most important info for Fomalhaut b. These data are valid, whether Fomalhaut b is an exoplanet or not. It really doesn't matter that the infobox has the word "planet" in it, that's not visible to the reader anyway. -- This may change in the future, for example when we have more information about the nature of Fomalhaut b, its start and end dates, etc. Generally just more of the parameters allowed by the other template. If you have another template that includes orbit and discovery circumstances then that's a different story... Renerpho (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although it seems the planet isn't exactly a planet, it's got quite a bit of individual notoriety. I mean, it's the very first non-stellar object detected through imaging, and has obviously attracted plenty of attention considering it's received a formal IAU name, had Hubble observe it over the course of many years, and attracted a good number of papers analyzing its existence or nonexistence. In my eyes, it's no different to many other notable objects that ended up not existing, like Vulcan, Neith, or Themis. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox orbit

As pointed out in a recent edit, the orbit given in the infobox, and whether this object was even in orbit around Formalhaut at all, was based on the assumption that Formalhaut b is planetary. In last year's proposed merge discussion, I argued that the orbit was basically the only thing we knew for sure about this object, and that the infobox therefore should continue to be used. I was wrong about that assessment. I have since tried to bring the infobox up to date (here), but I no longer think this infobox template is a good match for the article. I have now purged most of the information in the infobox. In addition to the section about the physical characteristics that needs to be updated (and which has been blanked since last year), some elaboration about the orbit will be necessary. Renerpho (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this now proven to be an expanding dust cloud from colision.. or is a planet still podsible? 2601:87:4401:96D0:8EA:9B21:FAF1:7948 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the first, no to the second question. Renerpho (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[NYT-20200420-1] Andrews, Robin Goerge (April 20, 2020). "The Case of the Disappearing Exoplanet - Fomalhaut b was one of the first planets around another star to be directly imaged by telescopes. Some astronomers now say it was a cloud of asteroid debris". The New York Times. Retrieved April 21, 2020.

[PNAS-20200420-2] Gáspár, András; Rieke, George H. (April 20, 2020). "New HST data and modeling reveal a massive planetesimal collision around Fomalhaut". PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1912506117. Retrieved April 21, 2020.

[1]

[2]