Astronomers Confirm Planet Fomalhaut B

An international team of astronomers using data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has confirmed the presence of a massive planet around the nearby star Fomalhaut.

This is a Hubble image of Fomalhaut b obtained through the F606W filter (Thayne Currie et al)

Fomalhaut, a class A star twice as massive as the Sun and 20 times brighter, is located in the constellation Piscis Austrinus about 25 light-years away from us. The star is surrounded by a ring of dust and debris, making it a favorite system for astronomers to study.

In 2008, Hubble astronomers announced the discovery of a planet called Fomalhaut b, as the first extrasolar planet to be directly detected in visible light.

Astronomers believed it to be a giant planet, akin to Jupiter or Saturn, but later infrared images failed to detect it. Based on the object’s apparent motion and the lack of an infrared detection, they argue that the object is a short-lived dust cloud unrelated to any planet.

A new study, accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters (arXiv.org version), suggests that Fomalhaut b is a rare and possibly unique exoplanet that is completely shrouded by dust.

“Although our results seriously challenge the original discovery paper, they do so in a way that actually makes the object’s interpretation much cleaner and leaves intact the core conclusion, that Fomalhaut b is indeed a massive planet,” said study lead author Dr Thayne Currie of the University of Toronto.

The 2008 study reported that Fomalhaut b’s brightness varied by about a factor of two and cited this as evidence that the planet was accreting gas. Follow-up studies then interpreted this variability as evidence that the object actually was a transient dust cloud instead.

In the new study, Dr Currie’s team reanalyzed Hubble observations of the star from 2004 and 2006, and easily recovered the planet in observations taken at visible wavelengths near 600 and 800 nanometers, and made a new detection in violet light near 400 nanometers. In contrast to the earlier research, the team found that the planet remained at constant brightness.

The team also attempted to detect Fomalhaut b in the infrared using the Subaru Telescope in Hawaii, but was unable to do so. The non-detections with Subaru and Spitzer imply that Fomalhaut b must have less than twice the mass of Jupiter.

Another contentious issue has been the object’s orbit. If Fomalhaut b is responsible for the ring’s offset and sharp interior edge, then it must follow an orbit aligned with the ring and must now be moving at its slowest speed. The speed implied by the original study appeared to be too fast. Additionally, some researchers argued that Fomalhaut b follows a tilted orbit that passes through the ring plane.

This visible-light image from the Hubble Space Telescope shows the vicinity of the star Fomalhaut, including the location of its dust ring and Fomalhaut b (NASA / ESA / Thayne Currie / U. Toronto)

The team established that Fomalhaut b is moving with a speed and direction consistent with the original idea that the planet’s gravity is modifying the ring.

Because astronomers detect the planet by the light of surrounding dust and not by light or heat emitted by its atmosphere, Fomalhaut b no longer ranks as a ‘directly imaged exoplanet,’ instead it should be considered a ‘planet identified from direct imaging.’

_______

Bibliographic information: Thayne Currie et al. 2012. Direct Imaging Confirmation and Characterization of a Dust-Enshrouded Candidate Exoplanet Orbiting Fomalhaut. ApJ Letters in press; arXiv: 1210.6620

  • Angelo

    The Accretion theory
    and all its misconceived variations
    positing, gas and dust gravitationally
    attracted and became our solar
    system, are having serious difficulties
    proving their basic concepts and are
    flagrantly violating the laws of physics
    trying to explain the improvable.
    Accretion is a failed and rehashed theory
    of The Cartesian Hypothesis which
    was conceived by Reno Descartes (1644) and
    was successively mimicked by
    Swedenborg, Kant, La Place, Chamberlain and
    Moulton, Carl von Weizsacker,
    Whipple, Kuiper, Safronoff, the Astronomy elite
    and by the Astronomy
    Establishment. The “new” rewrite of the same old theory
    was titled “The
    Accretion Theory” and finally accepted by the IAU for unknown
    reasons. The
    same unanswerable questions and improvable scenarios remain as
    they have for
    the past 350 years. The absence of explanations or logical
    answers implies a
    more fundamental theory exists, namely Planetesimal, first
    introduced by
    George Gamow then Alpher, Herman, Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir James
    Jeans, Fred
    Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Hannes Alfven who all
    believed the
    Universe/Solar system started from an explosion. Please
    read “The
    formation
    of water and our solar system from a fission process wit an improved
    heliocentric model” (Amazon.com or Barnes
    &Noble.com) The AP Theory is a Planetesamal,Heliocentric,
    theory, logically explaining how from extreme temperature
    Atoms were stripped
    of their electrons, causing the bare nuclei to collided
    and produce the
    energy to initiate a tremendous pressure to cause the
    formation of water,
    atmosphere and our solar system from material produced
    and provided by our
    Sun. It states global warming is cyclical and predicts a
    gas lighter than
    Hydrogen will be discovered beyond the Heliopause. Here are
    some of the
    unanswered questions which need to be addressed . 1. The laws of Physics clearly state
    gas
    is molecularly structured to expand indefinitely, how can gas be
    attracted
    by gravity or condense into solid particles? 2. Why weren’t the
    “rotating
    discs” thrown out into space instead of accreting? 3. How could
    Venus’s and
    the moon’s surfaces have been formed all at the same time 4.5
    billion years
    ago? 4. Why do Venus, Uranus and one third of the moons, spin
    in a direction
    opposite to the others? 5. What useful information is
    available on the
    specific solid state processes at work in the accretion
    phase? 6. How was
    the planetary matter separated from the solar gases? 7. How
    did the
    collapsing cloud cross the thermal, angular and momentum barriers? 8.
    What
    were the mechanics of condensation and accretion? 9. Where did our water
    and
    atmosphere come from? 10. Where did the gravity originate in the
    first
    place, to start the accretion process? 11. Objects move very slowly as
    they
    get further from the Sun, the Kuiper Belt and beyond would take
    longer
    than 4.5 billion years to accrete, how is that explained?

    Respectfully Angelo Pettolino Author