Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cesarmac t1_j9vdkwd wrote

Reply to comment by Kleanish in Massive 'forbidden planet' orbits a strangely tiny star only 4 times its size. by Rifletree

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.

1

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

46

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.

−3

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.

−5