This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GJ 1214 b article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving GJ 1214 b was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 December 2009. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Data about the planet is listed in the box in mathematical terms not readily intelligible to the general reader. It would be helpful if this display could at least include accompanying listings formulated in commonly understood units of measurement. For example, how long does it take for this planet to orbit its sun? thirty eight hours?
large quantities of liquid water could persist, some of which could be in the form of ice VII How can liquid water be in the form of Ice VII, which is a cubic crystalline form of ice? Why mention Ice VII at all? Qemist ( talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Would this article benefit from an artist's impression of the planet? If so, drop me a line with technical constraints. de Bivort 05:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The quoted semimajor axis (0.06816 ua) is inconsistent with the quoted period (1.58 days) given the star mass 0.157 given by exoplanet.eu. The same source gives a semimajor axis of 0.014, which is consistent with the period. If the semimajor axis is 0.014 then the temperature estimates given in the article become implausible because the implied irradiance is about 17 times terrestrial. Qemist ( talk) 07:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to insert the size comparison box, but it becomes pretty large. Any suggestion? -- Cyclopia talk 11:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
For the benefit of non-astronomers, if the temperature is more than 120C, how come the water doesn't boil?
Because of the extra pressure. But you would think at 500c it wouldn't be water. Most likely a very very thick Atmosphere like a super venus. I believe that should be noted as the most likely. /// —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthurricane ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The mass is primarily limited by the ability of the gravity to prevent the gases from escaping to space. Since the gravity decreases much slower with height it can hold more atmosphere than the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.155.237 ( talk) 15:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Just below the critical pressure of 218 atmospheres, the boiling point of water is 374°C (705°F) if I'm not misreading my physical tables (or else imagine the general principle). Just consider an espresso machine, and the image becomes pleasant! (? ;-) A Super-Earth does just refer to the mass only, less than f.ex. Uranus or Neptune but more than Earth. "Super-Venus" is not a term, such a body would be called a "Super-Earth". ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 17:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Are these percentages plausible? 75% water and 25% rock? That's a really small core of rock surrounded by an enormous amount of water. The Earth has a lot of water on its surface, but that's a very small percentage of what makes up the Earth as a whole. -- Evertype· ✆ 12:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
substance density g/cm³ water 1.0 carbon monoxide .789 (liquid) carbon dioxide 0.770 (liquid at 56 atm and 20 °C) 1.562 (solid at 1 atm and -78.5 °C) carbon 1.8 - 2.1 quartz 2.65 fused silica 2.2 metallic Si 2.329 iron (III) oxide 5.242 iron 7.874
-- 99.233.186.4 ( talk) 03:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, for comparison, Earth's density is around 5500 kg/m3, so whatever this planet is made of, it has to be a lot less dense than Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.20.234 ( talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there direct evidence for H2O on this planet? If not we should probably say that. -- Cam ( talk) 16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
These temperature estimates appear to ignore the greenhouse effect a massive atmosphere would surely have. These calculated values correspond to some kind of temperature (probably effective temperature I would guess) but are likely not to correspond to surface temperatures at all. 86.169.213.145 ( talk) 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that looks like two editors with poor reading comprehension skills. No wonder Wikipedia is full of crap. If you do a search of the discovery paper, as pulled off the arXiv, you will see it does not contain the term "surface temperature" at all. It does on the other hand refer to the equilibrium temperature. Even if you can't be bothered to read your sources all the way through, CTRL+F goes a long way. 86.169.213.145 ( talk) 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not a conjecture, it is a precisely defined physical quantity that is related to energy absorbed from the star's radiation, which is derived from a simple calculation that anyone with a halfway decent physics education would be able to do. However it is not what is usually meant by temperature, so calling it just plain temperature is misleading. Quoting these values as the temperature of the planet is the same as quoting the temperature of Venus as -41 degrees C (see black body temperature at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html). This is exactly the same mistake that was made when Gliese 581 c was trumpeted as a habitable planet based on its calculated equilibrium temperature... the fact the media accepted that story at the time indicates just how bad the state of science education is. 86.169.213.145 ( talk) 22:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
See template discussion. — Aldaron • T/ C 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The thing i love about Nature caliber articles is that the authors define their goal posts. They make it clear in their text that the estimated radius is the radius at a pressure of 1 millibars, with a scale height of 233 km. If we take the 1-millibar point as a virtual surface, then everything else makes a lot of sense. As for greenhouse effect, it is highly dependent on atmospheric composition. We could compare the absorption spectra for various atmospheric compositions via charts very much like [4], but these are shots in the dark until someone actually tries to measure the planet's atmospheric composition. -- 99.233.186.4 ( talk) 06:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hence, since the pressure level to which the transit beam is probing near the planet's terminator is close to 1 mbar (Fortney et al. 2003),
Should this image be included in the article? It is licensed under Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( Talk • Contribs) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There are several statements in this article that Don't seem to make sense to me. First off; if the planet is really so close to it's star (0.014 AU = only 1,300,000 miles) it seems like it should be boiling hot (probably at least 2000 K). Someone calculated it's blackbody temperature as 550 K by taking 22,744 K (where they got this number I don't know; By the way what does the "L" in the equation stand for?) raised to the 1/4 th power; the last time I checked 22,744^1/4 is approximately 12.27 (liquid hydrogen range). Would someone be kind enough to explain this better to my Mechanical Engineering degreed self? — 66.213.36.2 ( talk) 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What is meant by "Equilibrium Temperature" and why would Tidal Locking cause a weak Magnetic field (so what if the liquid portion of the planet did not rotate; if the solid part was hot enough couldn't there still be convection induced magnetism? — JeepAssembler ( talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
the research actually seems to say that the planet is NOT similar to neptune, here is a link to a bbc article about the research: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11886942
approximately 8 paragraphs from the bottom "For Dr Bean, that means that GJ 1214b must not be an icy "mini-Neptune" with a hydrogen or helium atmosphere." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.6 ( talk) 20:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed, BBC News, 21 February 2012. Connolly15 ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just read an article in my local paper regarding the whole waterworld idea. Apparently this planet is nicknamed Kevin, after Kevin Costner in Waterworld. I believe it was the scientists who were studying it using this nickname, but I'll have to double check (left the paper in my car). Should this be added to the article (pending the source obviously)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Pretty clear consensus to move. Regarding the spacing of the b, I went with the spaced b because (a) that was the old title and (b) all other Gliese and GJ articles seem to space the b. Feel free to start a new RM about the spacing if you want. Talk pages histmerged. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Gliese 1214 b →
GJ 1214 b – Per discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Gliese vs. GJ this should be at GJ 1214 b, not Gliese 1214 b. Stars in the
Catalogue of Nearby Stars with numbers 1000-1294 are from the 1979 extension published by Gliese and Jahreiß - these should be designated with "GJ" not "Gliese". Furthermore the star's entry in the CNS lists the designation as "GJ 1214"
[6], as opposed to stars with numbers <1000 e.g. Gliese 876 which it is listed as "Gl 876"
[7].relisting see below
Andrewa (
talk) 06:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
46.126.76.193 (
talk) 22:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.That discussion is archived at at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 22#Gliese vs. GJ. Wikipedia:Official names is probably also relevant.
There are some quite complex issues and I don't think the archived discussion makes the conclusion and its rationale plain. As many other articles are involved and no other editors have commented here, worth a relisting IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
I'm re-request a move from GJ 1214 b to Gliese 1214 b for 2 reasons.
The changed name would fit better with other Exoplanets and stellar objects that are in the Gliese Catalog. Agian this is all about consistency, being consistent with everything else in the same catalog should really be something disputable. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 20:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
From this article: Its parent star is 42 light-years from the Sun
On the page for Gliese 1214: It is located at a distance of approximately 47 light years from Earth. [1]
There seems to be some contradiction here, which of these are accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreezerGalaxy ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 10:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
– Per WP:STARNAMES, this discussion, and 2012 RM above. I've already moved GJ 3470 and GJ 3470 b. SevenSpheres ( talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 10:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre ( talk) 11:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GJ 1214 b article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving GJ 1214 b was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 20 December 2009. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Data about the planet is listed in the box in mathematical terms not readily intelligible to the general reader. It would be helpful if this display could at least include accompanying listings formulated in commonly understood units of measurement. For example, how long does it take for this planet to orbit its sun? thirty eight hours?
large quantities of liquid water could persist, some of which could be in the form of ice VII How can liquid water be in the form of Ice VII, which is a cubic crystalline form of ice? Why mention Ice VII at all? Qemist ( talk) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Would this article benefit from an artist's impression of the planet? If so, drop me a line with technical constraints. de Bivort 05:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The quoted semimajor axis (0.06816 ua) is inconsistent with the quoted period (1.58 days) given the star mass 0.157 given by exoplanet.eu. The same source gives a semimajor axis of 0.014, which is consistent with the period. If the semimajor axis is 0.014 then the temperature estimates given in the article become implausible because the implied irradiance is about 17 times terrestrial. Qemist ( talk) 07:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to insert the size comparison box, but it becomes pretty large. Any suggestion? -- Cyclopia talk 11:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
For the benefit of non-astronomers, if the temperature is more than 120C, how come the water doesn't boil?
Because of the extra pressure. But you would think at 500c it wouldn't be water. Most likely a very very thick Atmosphere like a super venus. I believe that should be noted as the most likely. /// —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthurricane ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The mass is primarily limited by the ability of the gravity to prevent the gases from escaping to space. Since the gravity decreases much slower with height it can hold more atmosphere than the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.155.237 ( talk) 15:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Just below the critical pressure of 218 atmospheres, the boiling point of water is 374°C (705°F) if I'm not misreading my physical tables (or else imagine the general principle). Just consider an espresso machine, and the image becomes pleasant! (? ;-) A Super-Earth does just refer to the mass only, less than f.ex. Uranus or Neptune but more than Earth. "Super-Venus" is not a term, such a body would be called a "Super-Earth". ... said: Rursus ( mbork³) 17:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Are these percentages plausible? 75% water and 25% rock? That's a really small core of rock surrounded by an enormous amount of water. The Earth has a lot of water on its surface, but that's a very small percentage of what makes up the Earth as a whole. -- Evertype· ✆ 12:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
substance density g/cm³ water 1.0 carbon monoxide .789 (liquid) carbon dioxide 0.770 (liquid at 56 atm and 20 °C) 1.562 (solid at 1 atm and -78.5 °C) carbon 1.8 - 2.1 quartz 2.65 fused silica 2.2 metallic Si 2.329 iron (III) oxide 5.242 iron 7.874
-- 99.233.186.4 ( talk) 03:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, for comparison, Earth's density is around 5500 kg/m3, so whatever this planet is made of, it has to be a lot less dense than Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.20.234 ( talk) 17:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there direct evidence for H2O on this planet? If not we should probably say that. -- Cam ( talk) 16:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
These temperature estimates appear to ignore the greenhouse effect a massive atmosphere would surely have. These calculated values correspond to some kind of temperature (probably effective temperature I would guess) but are likely not to correspond to surface temperatures at all. 86.169.213.145 ( talk) 18:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that looks like two editors with poor reading comprehension skills. No wonder Wikipedia is full of crap. If you do a search of the discovery paper, as pulled off the arXiv, you will see it does not contain the term "surface temperature" at all. It does on the other hand refer to the equilibrium temperature. Even if you can't be bothered to read your sources all the way through, CTRL+F goes a long way. 86.169.213.145 ( talk) 19:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not a conjecture, it is a precisely defined physical quantity that is related to energy absorbed from the star's radiation, which is derived from a simple calculation that anyone with a halfway decent physics education would be able to do. However it is not what is usually meant by temperature, so calling it just plain temperature is misleading. Quoting these values as the temperature of the planet is the same as quoting the temperature of Venus as -41 degrees C (see black body temperature at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html). This is exactly the same mistake that was made when Gliese 581 c was trumpeted as a habitable planet based on its calculated equilibrium temperature... the fact the media accepted that story at the time indicates just how bad the state of science education is. 86.169.213.145 ( talk) 22:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
See template discussion. — Aldaron • T/ C 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
The thing i love about Nature caliber articles is that the authors define their goal posts. They make it clear in their text that the estimated radius is the radius at a pressure of 1 millibars, with a scale height of 233 km. If we take the 1-millibar point as a virtual surface, then everything else makes a lot of sense. As for greenhouse effect, it is highly dependent on atmospheric composition. We could compare the absorption spectra for various atmospheric compositions via charts very much like [4], but these are shots in the dark until someone actually tries to measure the planet's atmospheric composition. -- 99.233.186.4 ( talk) 06:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hence, since the pressure level to which the transit beam is probing near the planet's terminator is close to 1 mbar (Fortney et al. 2003),
Should this image be included in the article? It is licensed under Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale ( Talk • Contribs) 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
There are several statements in this article that Don't seem to make sense to me. First off; if the planet is really so close to it's star (0.014 AU = only 1,300,000 miles) it seems like it should be boiling hot (probably at least 2000 K). Someone calculated it's blackbody temperature as 550 K by taking 22,744 K (where they got this number I don't know; By the way what does the "L" in the equation stand for?) raised to the 1/4 th power; the last time I checked 22,744^1/4 is approximately 12.27 (liquid hydrogen range). Would someone be kind enough to explain this better to my Mechanical Engineering degreed self? — 66.213.36.2 ( talk) 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What is meant by "Equilibrium Temperature" and why would Tidal Locking cause a weak Magnetic field (so what if the liquid portion of the planet did not rotate; if the solid part was hot enough couldn't there still be convection induced magnetism? — JeepAssembler ( talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
the research actually seems to say that the planet is NOT similar to neptune, here is a link to a bbc article about the research: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11886942
approximately 8 paragraphs from the bottom "For Dr Bean, that means that GJ 1214b must not be an icy "mini-Neptune" with a hydrogen or helium atmosphere." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.6 ( talk) 20:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Distant 'waterworld' is confirmed, BBC News, 21 February 2012. Connolly15 ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just read an article in my local paper regarding the whole waterworld idea. Apparently this planet is nicknamed Kevin, after Kevin Costner in Waterworld. I believe it was the scientists who were studying it using this nickname, but I'll have to double check (left the paper in my car). Should this be added to the article (pending the source obviously)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Pretty clear consensus to move. Regarding the spacing of the b, I went with the spaced b because (a) that was the old title and (b) all other Gliese and GJ articles seem to space the b. Feel free to start a new RM about the spacing if you want. Talk pages histmerged. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Gliese 1214 b →
GJ 1214 b – Per discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Gliese vs. GJ this should be at GJ 1214 b, not Gliese 1214 b. Stars in the
Catalogue of Nearby Stars with numbers 1000-1294 are from the 1979 extension published by Gliese and Jahreiß - these should be designated with "GJ" not "Gliese". Furthermore the star's entry in the CNS lists the designation as "GJ 1214"
[6], as opposed to stars with numbers <1000 e.g. Gliese 876 which it is listed as "Gl 876"
[7].relisting see below
Andrewa (
talk) 06:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
46.126.76.193 (
talk) 22:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.That discussion is archived at at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 22#Gliese vs. GJ. Wikipedia:Official names is probably also relevant.
There are some quite complex issues and I don't think the archived discussion makes the conclusion and its rationale plain. As many other articles are involved and no other editors have commented here, worth a relisting IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
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.
I'm re-request a move from GJ 1214 b to Gliese 1214 b for 2 reasons.
The changed name would fit better with other Exoplanets and stellar objects that are in the Gliese Catalog. Agian this is all about consistency, being consistent with everything else in the same catalog should really be something disputable. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 20:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
From this article: Its parent star is 42 light-years from the Sun
On the page for Gliese 1214: It is located at a distance of approximately 47 light years from Earth. [1]
There seems to be some contradiction here, which of these are accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreezerGalaxy ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 10:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
– Per WP:STARNAMES, this discussion, and 2012 RM above. I've already moved GJ 3470 and GJ 3470 b. SevenSpheres ( talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc. talk 10:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre ( talk) 11:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)