Comments
Harlockin t1_ixh940m wrote
Yes why ? It's when the star winds interact with the planet athmospere and create new particuls
bostwickenator t1_ixhbkf1 wrote
If by star winds you mean light
bobert3469 t1_ixhcjnj wrote
More like the pressure that photons creates as they travel.
bostwickenator t1_ixhcxtd wrote
Solar wind and presumably "star wind" conventionally refers to charged particles being lost from the corona of the star and traveling through space. This has nothing to do with photochemistry which involves light itself.
bobert3469 t1_ixhdi6o wrote
I know that. I was referring to the comment about star wind. Yes it's charged particles being released but photonic pressure plays a part also. Wasn't referring the chemistry but the physics.
bostwickenator t1_ixhdrwu wrote
Yes it would be inaccurate to say this powers photochemistry. As I pointed out.
mangalore-x_x t1_ixh9wgy wrote
I guess, it sounds a lot like something photo synthesis would be classified under.
Dwesaqe t1_ixhdky2 wrote
Yeah, it is a hot gas giant planet with a high temperature of 900 °C, it's very unlikely to host any life.
mangalore-x_x t1_ixhe4f8 wrote
Yes, just wanted to point out why someone might find the term an exciting discovery thinking it implies that when it does not.
Harlockin t1_ixhtb1b wrote
The article explain it "concrete evidence of photochemistry – chemical reactions initiated by light hitting a planet's atmosphere." so he might just have read the keywords
bostwickenator t1_ixhbr6c wrote
"concrete evidence" was the term used. However as they note photochemistry is just that. Light and chemicals. We should expect to see it anywhere we can see.
[deleted] t1_ixil9x7 wrote
This. It's interesting for sure, but can we stop being surprised that chemistry and physics are going to be all the same everywhere we look?
Temporary-Map1842 t1_ixm7lal wrote
Photochemistry is not photosynthesis as many seem to have assumed. Photochemistry happens on Titan nothing groundbreaking other than JWST can make this measurement over a greater distance than previously possible.
[deleted] t1_ixm0au7 wrote
[deleted]
bshea t1_ixm4sqt wrote
The "Atmosphere Composition" image in posted article has no reason to be in the article since (as usual) someone decided to use a thumbnail/downsized version which is worthless.
To actually see it :
Full-rez jpg - https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GJ3QAA4HWFJV8REYD3XHDW9G.jpg
Or, go here - https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/060/01GJ3Q66DTT4HPMDCVNC9GXH5Y
Chazmer87 t1_ixh6ngf wrote
Wait... Did that article say confirmed photochemistry?