Gliese 581 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Gliese 581 f page were merged into Gliese 581. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (29 July 2014) |
The contents of the Gliese 581 planetary system page were merged into Gliese 581. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (4 January 2021) |
Hey eager-beavers, please respect the embargo. It's only another 6 hours. Vegasprof 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia has the data available for the planets c and d. [2]— JyriL talk 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The chart says the planets are in order by distance from the star, but aren't they actually in order of discovery? Egamble928 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A planet far more massive than the earth, orbiting a much dimmer star than the sun, in 12 and some days.
Maybe it's near earth temperatures. Maybe it isn't.
Is this news? Is this accurate? Does wikipedia want to go here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.209.190 ( talk • contribs) 25 April, 2007
What would one see in the sky when Gliese 581 b makes a transit of the sun (Gliese 581)? Would it appear as a dot over that sun, or would it completely eclipse the sun? Our sun, of course, would appear in the constellation Cetus. GBC 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Answered that, ten years too late, but stil...
NelsonWins ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
88 days, not too shoddy, right?
The table on the Gliese 581 page gives a very high eccentricity of 0.3 for c's orbit; the page for Gliese 581 c gives eccentricity 0. Eccentricity 0.3 for a semimajor axis 0x 0.073 AU puts perihelion at about 0.039 AU if I got my math right; this is inside the orbit of Gliese 581 b, so I'm guessing that Gliese 581 c is more right than this page. Anyone have more info? Kaleja 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any estimated age of the star or planetary system. Age is of course relevant when considering the chances of life on the planet.
The Urdy et al. 2007 Astronomy & Astrophysics pre-print discovery paper gives the age (but notes uncertainty of +- 1 Gyr). Michaelbusch 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that HD4308 is not Gl581, and an other article about Gl581 gives 2 billion years to the age. I wrote to the editor of the exoplanets encíclopedia - no response.-- 157.181.47.247 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping this article could point me to a list of other nearby stars. Mathiastck 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Two questions: How do you pronounce the name of this star? And in terms of ranking amongst all other stars, how far away is it? — Jack · talk · 17:16, Thursday, 26 April 2007
I realise quite well that ‘Celestia isn’t reality’. However, so far I’ve found only one image of the star which is real ( and that image is copyrighted and non-free. As for other images, I don’t see any advantage of the non-free art of Image:Phot-22a-07-normal.jpg versus some similar image made with Celestia that would justify using the non-free image. — xyzzy n 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What we really need now is a simple diagram of the orbits of the different planets.-- Pharos 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some question about whether this is or is not the first exoplanet in a habitable zone. No other examples are listed in the habitable zone article or any other reference I've seen yet. I think a sentence saying "this is notable because ..." should be as simple as possible, and if extra qualifications like "low mass" or "rocky" are necessary we should know what the "high mass" or "gaseous" examples are. 24.20.137.228 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Astrophysics professor Greg Laughlin says HD 73526 c is a "room temperature gas giant" and HD 100777 b is "squarely in the habitable zone of its parent star". Somebody/me/whoever should probably mention something about these planets in Habitable zone. 24.20.137.228 12:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: apparently there are three Earthlike planets in this system, one at the inner edge and one at outer edge of goldilocks zone, and one - Gliese 581 g - right about in the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This article lists three planets, 581b, 581c, and 581d. Why was "a" skipped? Nik42 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are about 12 planets with Earthlike temperatures, and these are massive enough to have Earth's mass moons that could hold life.Gliese 581 c is overhyped, this planet will be almost certainly very hot.Using these blackbody calculations, you will get temperature -20 degress Cellsius for our Earth.
This edit seems to have been made by someone with a bone to pick against exoplanets in general and this one in particular. For example, saying that: 'Another fairy tale is possibly more appropriate to current exoplanet studies, termed the "Emperor's New Clothes Effect" ' certainly seems to me like this person has a bias against "current exoplanet studies". Can there at least be reliable citations to back up this part of the article? 4.245.224.8 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting comment considering the original article stated that Gliese 581 c is both 50% larger than the Earth and also that it is rocky when it is scientifically impossible to give that evidence at present, let alone reference it. It's a circular argument. If the radius is like that, the density of an object of that mass must surely be that of rock, if it's rocky, then it'll be 50% bigger than Earth at that mass. No reference was given for those statements in the original article.
In fact the whole original entry was riddled with super Earth bias of which there is little or no evidence even in the published scientific papers. Look at a solar system illustration placing earth adjacent to Neptune in terms of size, and imagine this third of a neptune minimum mass object , 5 x earth's mass, between the two.
It's simple. Wikipedia's own Spectroscopic binary data gives clues to how radial velocity work is done. Mass limits so derived are lower mass limits. They cannot be true in this instance as the object does not transit... ...unless a very recent press release on MOST satellite says different when the actual paper comes out.
Most exoplanet hype from the institutions is just that, hype. There is little independent confirmation except for the handful of transiting objects, most of the values have large scatter on their errors, including the distances, and the best fudged numbers are given. Most of the statements in the wikipedia entry on c were not referenced directly.
I'm not so much biased as anti-biased, or biased squared if you prefer. You've taken a propoganda bias and quoted it verbatim. Most of the data does not support statements as _exact_ as those made. I know encyclopedic entries are more general and not as specialised as niche and dedicated articles, but as the mass, size and nature of this object is purest speculation even given the formal data, noises about habitable zones and frost lines are perforce speculation based upon speculation. The only known Goldilocks Zone is in the Solar System, evidently this extrasolar system of Gliese 581 is not like the calibrating Solar System in anyway.
When it comes to reference the situation here is that the original statements had little specific reference to each attested fact anyway, whereas the points that can be pointed out as wrong are general facts, not usually referenced. For instance, SB1 spectroscopic binaries have their masses quoted as a ratio, an inclination dependent ratio, relative to the mass of the primary. Single red dwarf stars have their masses assumed, not measured, via a luminosity relation that is not the same for red dwarfs as other main sequence stars, and carries several differing values in the literature. The apparent magnitude and the parallax of this object, Gliese 581, are well known enough for an absolute magnitude to be derived, and thus the luminosity. Which mass relation is then used? Further, it may be that there are two such relations for red dwarfs, as can be seen by differing absolute magnitudes for differing objects, for example Proxima Centauri and Barnard's star, which are likely listed in wikipedia. And yet some assumption on this mass is taken for the red dwarf, that is used with the radial velocity data to assume a minimum mass for object c, which in itself is not the real mass as then it'd be at 90 degrees inclination, and thus eclipsing/transiting. Etcetera, etcetera, standard, general principles, stuff. This could shift the object's mass all over the place, if proper error ranges are considered. Therefore, Emperor's New Clothes. The original article carried the unfounded bias.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the similar generalized, not rigorously referenced, comments and changes I made with respect to the fact Gliese 581 is in fact not variable, despite what the reference catalogues say, was not excised for bias, likely because it makes the case for "life" out there more feasible. Feh.
Whatever, do what ya want, it's your wiki. Just don't accuse something assessing the bias of massive unsubstantiated speculation being passed off as concrete fact as being bias itself. How can you disprove something that is itself unproven? As the saying goes "it's not even wrong".
86.137.132.151 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Are there any spectra of Gliese 581 available from which we can get an empirical value, as opposed to assuming the star is a blackbody (an approximation that isn't too good for cool stars)? Chaos syndrome 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The paper that is referenced to in wikipedia is evidently taking the star to be a black body hence the values quoted for the bolometric luminosity within it.
Cooler stars are more prone to stray from a black body proximation in their continuum due to molecular absorption bands, but for a red dwarf this should be relatively insignificant. Hopefully.
How would you ascertain this peak wavelength? It would not just be the highest bit of the plot, or the most intense wavelength if there were emission peaks, for instance.
81.129.250.131 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have an issue with a user (I assume it is one user with two IP addresses from the content of the edit summaries)
who is insisting on changing the value of the luminosity from the quoted value in the literature to a value calculated by that user. The values differ by only 0.1% of the solar luminosity (literature value=1.3%, user's value=1.2%). Already this is pretty good agreement, and looking at the von Bloh paper "Habitability of super-Earths in Gliese 581" it appears the error on the quoted value is 0.2% of a solar luminosity anyway, so the values derived are essentially identical. Since the user's calculation supports the literature value (the discrepancy is probably negligible within the error margins anyway), I suggest we go with the literature luminosity as we can provide a verifiable citation to this value. Chaos syndrome 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph, as of this date, includes the phrase, "It is about two degrees north of beta Librae . . ."
I've seen locations of celestial bodies described in this way before and have never understood what that meant. I decided to try to make a link in the above phrase as a way of educating myself, but was unable to discover (within Wikipedia, at least) an adequate explanation to which I could link. I found the Celestial pole article, which provides some context but doesn't provide a satisfying layman's explanation for how a celestial body could be described as being "north" of another celestial body, and what the "degrees" are. I assume that it has something to do with the axis around which earth-bound observers perceive the heavens to be rotating, but that's an assumption on my part and represents the extent of my education on the subject.
Part of my problem is that I don't have an adequate search term. I don't know what that system of notation is called, so I can't search for it by name. Can someone out there with a knowledge of astronomy help me (and, likely, other readers)? Perhaps Wikipedia already has an article on this subject but I've been unable to find it. — CKA3KA (Skazka) ( talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just been doing a bit of research into Gliese 581 and have found that the star is also referred to as Wolf 562, so why is this alternate name not listed in this article? I know that all other star articles list all the other names, but I don't see this one here, so why not? (for confirmation of the name check out this page: [5]) -- Hibernian ( talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
HO Librae is a variable star designation. Furthermore the current way things appear to be working is to give preference to Bayer and Flamsteed designations over catalog numbers, but this does not appear to apply to variable star designations, and in any case HO Librae is not used in news articles pertaining to this star (seems to be almost universally referred to by the Gliese number in such sources). Furthermore there is the argument that since the star is not variable, the variable star designation should not be used. I moved it out of the lead paragraph for this reason. Icalanise ( talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Astrometry info box gives the distance as 19.9 ± 0.3 ly, whereas the opening paragraph gives the distance as 20.5 light years. Which, if either, is correct? Can someone please correct it. HumphreyW ( talk) 11:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a few concerns with this article, mainly with referencing, so I am putting the article on hold until these issues can be addressed. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
In reviewing the planetary chart for this system, its obvious that there is a significant gap between the two outer planets that should allow for a fourth planet in between under the Titus-Bode Resonance Law (which essentially says that each planet should be twice as far from its primary as the next inner planet, on average). Is there any research on this issue that anybody can find? 75.67.80.68 ( talk) 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
the gap between the outer two planets is significant enough that under the Titus-Bode Resonance Law (which essentially says that the distance of a planet from its primary should be twice that of the next inner planet, with some adjustments for mass) there should be a fourth planet between the two outer planets, and which also puts it smack dab in the middle of the habitable zone. As it is as yet undetected, this could be a terrestrial earth-like planet, if it exists. Is there any research out there we can find that would support or disprove this possibility? 75.67.80.68 ( talk) 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the second paragraph of the "Star" section of this article as it is merely an argument against a previous version of this paragraph that identified Gliese 581 as a BY Draconis variable type variable star as it is appears in the latest (2008) version of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (search Gliese 581). [6] The author of this latest paragraph rewrite wants to minimize the variability of this star to improve the star's theoretical habitability. One reference he quotes is unavailable and the other is a just collection of raw data. We should stick to the variable star classification until SIMBAD and other recognized databases officially reclassify this star. I am not opposed to restoring the original paragraph, or adding a new section on new published research concerning the variability of this star, if any. Aldebaran66 ( talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (page 2 of pre-print submitted 9 September 2006)</ref>I have mixed feeling on the image: (Shortcut to image on ESO site) But technically speaking the image is incorrect on the phases of the outer planets and I don't think it offers any educational value. Then again I doubt few people look at it that closely. But I do think it is possible that the naked eye would barely make Gliese 581 d out as a small round sphere since it is less than 0.28AU away from 581e. Their have been reports of people seeing the cresent phase of Venus (66″) and the naked eye has a resolution of 1–2′. Note the ESO image makes it clear, "planet d, with the bluish colour". -- Kheider ( talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm an avid amateur astronomer and it brings tears to my eyes to see a picture at the bottom of the star system like the one for ours. It's amazing how our knowledge has grown. Looking at the picture, I honestly stopped feeling all alone out here in this corner of the universe. So, thank you to everyone who's let us understand this - including folks here on wikipedia. - Josh Shahryar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.80.204 ( talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
EPE has updated e, saying the orbit has changed and mass and stuff. I'm not sure what the #>m># means... so I'm leaving someone else to update it... Syntheticalconnections ( talk) 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"...Gliese 581 c orbits just inside of the habitable zone of its parent star" and "Gliese 581 d ... orbits just inside of the habitable zone of its star": Surely they cannot both be "just inside of" if c orbits at 0.07 AU and d at 0.22 AU (that's ~21 million km further out). Especially as Gliese 581 d says "It was originally thought that Gliese 581 d orbits outside the habitable zone of its star. However, in 2009 the original discovery team revised its original estimate of the planet's orbital parameters, finding that it orbits closer to its star than originally believed. They concluded that the planet is within the habitable zone where liquid water could exist."
Then there's "Gliese 581 c ... is notable as it is the planet with lowest minimum mass yet discovered in the habitable zone of another star, making it the most earthlike exoplanet found to date.[18]" compared to "Gliese 581 e, ... at an estimated minimum mass of 1.9 Earths, is currently the lowest mass exoplanet identified around a normal star". Either c is in the habitale zone or it isn't and maybe it is the least massive or it isn't (c = 5.36 – 10.4 M⊕, e = 1.94 – 3.1 M⊕)
The individual planet articles seem better. 87.115.207.175 ( talk) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There was what appears to have been a premature press release from Keck Observatory at this address: http://keckobservatory.org/news/test2/ The url is interesting ("test2"?) but though the content has been removed, the page title still displays "Keck Observatory discovers the first Goldilocks exoplanet". When I initially retrieved the article, it indicated two new planets, with 581 g well within the habitable zone. Since they removed the release, I have undone my edit to the page. Woodega ( talk) 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Returned my previous edit, with corrected URL.
I've also noticed an ambiguity or contradiction in what planets are where in the habitable zone. This Wikipedia article states that Gliese 581 d is "just inside the habitable zone," yet the release from Keck states that 581 g is in the middle of the habitable zone. Gliese 581 d has a period of 66.8 days, which would mean that it orbits outside 581 g's orbit, since 581 g's orbital period is 37 days. Should 581 d's information be changed to something like "just within the outer limit of the habitable zone"? I guess I'll do some more digging for accurate details. Woodega ( talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Chart labelled 'The Gliese 581 planetary system orbits.' ( File:GJ581orbits.svg) is now out of date, as its missing both Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g. I don't have ability to update, haven't seen any new ones yet. I considered taking it down, since its a little confusing, but decided partial visual info was better than noting. replacing this chart would be very helpful. Jvol ( talk) 04:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I will attempt to regenerate the orbital chart for the 6-planet solution. Given the range of semimajor axes it may be that the best solution is to view the system at two different scales, as I did for the view of the system of HD 10180. Incidentally you CANNOT take the eccentricities from the 4-planet solution and quote them for the same planets in the 6-planet fit. It is well-known property of multi-planet systems that unmodelled signals can manifest as extra eccentricity in the known planets, for example the 3-planet fit to the radial velocities for Mu Arae gave much higher eccentricities than the 4-planet fit. If we take the solution with 6-planets, the orbits of planets c and d should be taken as circular. Icalanise ( talk) 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section, link didn't get to a clear source, and the only search matches I found were blogs quoting wikipedia! Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Seeing the article A Message From Earth, I relinked it, taking the openning paragraph from there for greater clarity. Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
In October 2008, members of the networking website Bebo beamed A Message From Earth, a high-power transmission at Gliese 581 c, using the RT-70 radio telescope belonging to the National Space Agency of Ukraine. This transmission is due to arrive in the Gliese 581 system's vicinity by the year 2029; the earliest possible arrival for a response, should there be one, would be in 2049.< ref> "Zimbio Pilot - Gliese 581c". Zimbio.com. 2008-10-13. Retrieved 2009-04-23.</ref> |
The opening paragraphs describe planets c and d as Venus-like and Mars-like respectively. This is very speculative. There is no particular reason to assume that these planets are anything like Venus and Mars, or even that they are terrestrial in nature. They could easily have compositions dominated by ices rather than rock. This would make planet c completely unlike the extremely water-poor planet Venus, and provide d with a much more substantial atmosphere than Mars has. Just because a planet is located in an equivalent region of space doesn't mean it is an analogue of what we have in the same part of our Solar System. Icalanise ( talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see this data anywhere, it's rather strange. Can it be explained somehow? It would be very interesting to add this information to article (if its possible, of course).-- Beaber ( talk) 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Both are unconfirmed on the EPE. atomic 77 32 23:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a source for the epoch JD 2453152 for the Mayor et al. (2009) orbits. The arXiv version lists some JD in Table 2 (actually Table 1 in the released paper due to a misnumbering in the preprint), but it remains unclear to what these refer, and none of them equals the value given in the orbit plot.-- SiriusB ( talk) 11:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The page makes a simple error i think i am right in saying in the use of parsecs (20) over light years, a factor of 3.26x which makes a difference as to whether i can beam myself there in this lifetime without resorting to breaking the speed of light, so its relevance is actually quite large. Of course waiting to transfer from 581c to 581g probably takes 3 lifetimes so I suppose it can be forgiven. Mythole ( talk) 15:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are these crossed out? In the gliese 581 g article it also says this. The source listed is an opinion and only doubts the fact that they do not exist, there is no actual proof these planets do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.100.196 ( talk) 15:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article made several mentions of Gliese 581 being a "star system", however I find no mention of any stellar companions in its neighbourhood. I assume some may be confusing star system with planetary system a this lack of distinction which can be misleading. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 04:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The existence of Gliese 581 G and F have not yet been confirmed (In fact, they seem to be in the process of being disproved), yet the articles for the planetary companions of Gliese 581 are written as if their existence is without doubt. This needs to be fixed, and future edits that support this viewpoint without evidence need to be blocked.
VelociraptorBlade ( talk) 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I came across this article from Zeta Tucanae, and it states that Gliese 581 has a debris disk… in 2009. Was this never noticed, or what? I'm not entirely sure how to translate the data into something meaningful (infrared excesses to semi-major axes, mainly), but this going apparently entirely unnoticed by wikipedia is a bit odd. Has this been invalidated at some point? ShellfaceTheStrange ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's described in the two tables in this article as a "Comet belt" but is the composition of the Dust Disk so precisely known? Could it not possibly be instead a Debris Disk with a very low volatile content, like the one around Epsilon Eridani and Zeta2 Reticuli? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.226.225 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Gliese 581g officially confirmed.
News:
http://www.universetoday.com/96374/exoplanet-gliese-581g-makes-the-top-5/
http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/fivepotentialhabitableexoplanetsnow
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 ( talk) 09:23, 25 July 2012
http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog
http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data
Here we go again... [15] 46.126.76.193 ( talk) 20:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Three planets (b,c,e), the rest is just stellar activity. [18] 77.57.25.250 ( talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/07/02/science.1253253 Time to update the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:4800:5E0:9167:112D:758D:9C9D ( talk) 11:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the articles Gliese 581 d, Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g are merged into this article. While the case for having an article for these objects (particularly the habitable zone candidates) would be clear if they were thought to exist, it now seems that all three of these detections were actually the result of stellar activity. It therefore makes sense to discuss them as part of the history of planet claims in the Gliese 581 system, but having separate articles gives undue weight to the now-disputed planetary interpretation of these radial velocity signals. 77.57.25.250 ( talk) 10:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Given the above discussion pretty clearly leans towards support, I am proceeding with the merge in the following order. 77.57.25.250 ( talk) 20:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Couple of image requests:
77.57.25.250 ( talk) 21:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Gliese 581 d ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Gliese 581 e -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 07:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see the paper: "Dynamical evolution and spin-orbit resonances of potentially habitable exoplanets. The case of GJ 581d." The Astrophysical Journal 761:83 (2012) ( http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/761/2/83/ )
The analysis of data, presented in this work tells that Gliese 581 f and g do not exist, while d must be real. 71.178.188.237 ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The planets in this GJ 581 system are on of those that will get a common names next year. But the website created for this very task ( http://nameexoworlds.org/#planets) has some slightly different data! GJ 581 b,c on the website are pretty much identical to the data of those planets in the article (only some really minor differences in masses and orbital parameters exist). I thought that GJ 581 d on the website might be identical to our GJ 581 e here, and just has a different identifier because the previously "detected" planet d was a spuke. But actually the attributes don't fit. So either the article or nameexoworlds.org is wrong. -- Sirius3100 ( talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's at least arguable that Gliese 581d might be real after all: see
and then this rebuttal:
but also the response to that from the authors of the first-cited paper:
-- The Anome ( talk) 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The previously dubious exoplanet GJ 581 d is back, new studies how that the plant is likely to exist. [1] Because of this I feel that it is approprte to demerge and redo the "Histroy of detections," due to this new evidence. No word on GJ 581 g's existence. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 02:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The article on Gliese 581 e is pretty small, and is unlikely to expand in the future, so it would be better to simply merge it. MartinZ02 ( talk) 14:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gliese 581. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Gliese 581 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Gliese 581 f page were merged into Gliese 581. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (29 July 2014) |
The contents of the Gliese 581 planetary system page were merged into Gliese 581. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (4 January 2021) |
Hey eager-beavers, please respect the embargo. It's only another 6 hours. Vegasprof 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia has the data available for the planets c and d. [2]— JyriL talk 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The chart says the planets are in order by distance from the star, but aren't they actually in order of discovery? Egamble928 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A planet far more massive than the earth, orbiting a much dimmer star than the sun, in 12 and some days.
Maybe it's near earth temperatures. Maybe it isn't.
Is this news? Is this accurate? Does wikipedia want to go here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.209.190 ( talk • contribs) 25 April, 2007
What would one see in the sky when Gliese 581 b makes a transit of the sun (Gliese 581)? Would it appear as a dot over that sun, or would it completely eclipse the sun? Our sun, of course, would appear in the constellation Cetus. GBC 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Answered that, ten years too late, but stil...
NelsonWins ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
88 days, not too shoddy, right?
The table on the Gliese 581 page gives a very high eccentricity of 0.3 for c's orbit; the page for Gliese 581 c gives eccentricity 0. Eccentricity 0.3 for a semimajor axis 0x 0.073 AU puts perihelion at about 0.039 AU if I got my math right; this is inside the orbit of Gliese 581 b, so I'm guessing that Gliese 581 c is more right than this page. Anyone have more info? Kaleja 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any estimated age of the star or planetary system. Age is of course relevant when considering the chances of life on the planet.
The Urdy et al. 2007 Astronomy & Astrophysics pre-print discovery paper gives the age (but notes uncertainty of +- 1 Gyr). Michaelbusch 00:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that HD4308 is not Gl581, and an other article about Gl581 gives 2 billion years to the age. I wrote to the editor of the exoplanets encíclopedia - no response.-- 157.181.47.247 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping this article could point me to a list of other nearby stars. Mathiastck 07:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Two questions: How do you pronounce the name of this star? And in terms of ranking amongst all other stars, how far away is it? — Jack · talk · 17:16, Thursday, 26 April 2007
I realise quite well that ‘Celestia isn’t reality’. However, so far I’ve found only one image of the star which is real ( and that image is copyrighted and non-free. As for other images, I don’t see any advantage of the non-free art of Image:Phot-22a-07-normal.jpg versus some similar image made with Celestia that would justify using the non-free image. — xyzzy n 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What we really need now is a simple diagram of the orbits of the different planets.-- Pharos 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be some question about whether this is or is not the first exoplanet in a habitable zone. No other examples are listed in the habitable zone article or any other reference I've seen yet. I think a sentence saying "this is notable because ..." should be as simple as possible, and if extra qualifications like "low mass" or "rocky" are necessary we should know what the "high mass" or "gaseous" examples are. 24.20.137.228 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: Astrophysics professor Greg Laughlin says HD 73526 c is a "room temperature gas giant" and HD 100777 b is "squarely in the habitable zone of its parent star". Somebody/me/whoever should probably mention something about these planets in Habitable zone. 24.20.137.228 12:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
UPDATE: apparently there are three Earthlike planets in this system, one at the inner edge and one at outer edge of goldilocks zone, and one - Gliese 581 g - right about in the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This article lists three planets, 581b, 581c, and 581d. Why was "a" skipped? Nik42 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are about 12 planets with Earthlike temperatures, and these are massive enough to have Earth's mass moons that could hold life.Gliese 581 c is overhyped, this planet will be almost certainly very hot.Using these blackbody calculations, you will get temperature -20 degress Cellsius for our Earth.
This edit seems to have been made by someone with a bone to pick against exoplanets in general and this one in particular. For example, saying that: 'Another fairy tale is possibly more appropriate to current exoplanet studies, termed the "Emperor's New Clothes Effect" ' certainly seems to me like this person has a bias against "current exoplanet studies". Can there at least be reliable citations to back up this part of the article? 4.245.224.8 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Interesting comment considering the original article stated that Gliese 581 c is both 50% larger than the Earth and also that it is rocky when it is scientifically impossible to give that evidence at present, let alone reference it. It's a circular argument. If the radius is like that, the density of an object of that mass must surely be that of rock, if it's rocky, then it'll be 50% bigger than Earth at that mass. No reference was given for those statements in the original article.
In fact the whole original entry was riddled with super Earth bias of which there is little or no evidence even in the published scientific papers. Look at a solar system illustration placing earth adjacent to Neptune in terms of size, and imagine this third of a neptune minimum mass object , 5 x earth's mass, between the two.
It's simple. Wikipedia's own Spectroscopic binary data gives clues to how radial velocity work is done. Mass limits so derived are lower mass limits. They cannot be true in this instance as the object does not transit... ...unless a very recent press release on MOST satellite says different when the actual paper comes out.
Most exoplanet hype from the institutions is just that, hype. There is little independent confirmation except for the handful of transiting objects, most of the values have large scatter on their errors, including the distances, and the best fudged numbers are given. Most of the statements in the wikipedia entry on c were not referenced directly.
I'm not so much biased as anti-biased, or biased squared if you prefer. You've taken a propoganda bias and quoted it verbatim. Most of the data does not support statements as _exact_ as those made. I know encyclopedic entries are more general and not as specialised as niche and dedicated articles, but as the mass, size and nature of this object is purest speculation even given the formal data, noises about habitable zones and frost lines are perforce speculation based upon speculation. The only known Goldilocks Zone is in the Solar System, evidently this extrasolar system of Gliese 581 is not like the calibrating Solar System in anyway.
When it comes to reference the situation here is that the original statements had little specific reference to each attested fact anyway, whereas the points that can be pointed out as wrong are general facts, not usually referenced. For instance, SB1 spectroscopic binaries have their masses quoted as a ratio, an inclination dependent ratio, relative to the mass of the primary. Single red dwarf stars have their masses assumed, not measured, via a luminosity relation that is not the same for red dwarfs as other main sequence stars, and carries several differing values in the literature. The apparent magnitude and the parallax of this object, Gliese 581, are well known enough for an absolute magnitude to be derived, and thus the luminosity. Which mass relation is then used? Further, it may be that there are two such relations for red dwarfs, as can be seen by differing absolute magnitudes for differing objects, for example Proxima Centauri and Barnard's star, which are likely listed in wikipedia. And yet some assumption on this mass is taken for the red dwarf, that is used with the radial velocity data to assume a minimum mass for object c, which in itself is not the real mass as then it'd be at 90 degrees inclination, and thus eclipsing/transiting. Etcetera, etcetera, standard, general principles, stuff. This could shift the object's mass all over the place, if proper error ranges are considered. Therefore, Emperor's New Clothes. The original article carried the unfounded bias.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the similar generalized, not rigorously referenced, comments and changes I made with respect to the fact Gliese 581 is in fact not variable, despite what the reference catalogues say, was not excised for bias, likely because it makes the case for "life" out there more feasible. Feh.
Whatever, do what ya want, it's your wiki. Just don't accuse something assessing the bias of massive unsubstantiated speculation being passed off as concrete fact as being bias itself. How can you disprove something that is itself unproven? As the saying goes "it's not even wrong".
86.137.132.151 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Are there any spectra of Gliese 581 available from which we can get an empirical value, as opposed to assuming the star is a blackbody (an approximation that isn't too good for cool stars)? Chaos syndrome 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The paper that is referenced to in wikipedia is evidently taking the star to be a black body hence the values quoted for the bolometric luminosity within it.
Cooler stars are more prone to stray from a black body proximation in their continuum due to molecular absorption bands, but for a red dwarf this should be relatively insignificant. Hopefully.
How would you ascertain this peak wavelength? It would not just be the highest bit of the plot, or the most intense wavelength if there were emission peaks, for instance.
81.129.250.131 18:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have an issue with a user (I assume it is one user with two IP addresses from the content of the edit summaries)
who is insisting on changing the value of the luminosity from the quoted value in the literature to a value calculated by that user. The values differ by only 0.1% of the solar luminosity (literature value=1.3%, user's value=1.2%). Already this is pretty good agreement, and looking at the von Bloh paper "Habitability of super-Earths in Gliese 581" it appears the error on the quoted value is 0.2% of a solar luminosity anyway, so the values derived are essentially identical. Since the user's calculation supports the literature value (the discrepancy is probably negligible within the error margins anyway), I suggest we go with the literature luminosity as we can provide a verifiable citation to this value. Chaos syndrome 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph, as of this date, includes the phrase, "It is about two degrees north of beta Librae . . ."
I've seen locations of celestial bodies described in this way before and have never understood what that meant. I decided to try to make a link in the above phrase as a way of educating myself, but was unable to discover (within Wikipedia, at least) an adequate explanation to which I could link. I found the Celestial pole article, which provides some context but doesn't provide a satisfying layman's explanation for how a celestial body could be described as being "north" of another celestial body, and what the "degrees" are. I assume that it has something to do with the axis around which earth-bound observers perceive the heavens to be rotating, but that's an assumption on my part and represents the extent of my education on the subject.
Part of my problem is that I don't have an adequate search term. I don't know what that system of notation is called, so I can't search for it by name. Can someone out there with a knowledge of astronomy help me (and, likely, other readers)? Perhaps Wikipedia already has an article on this subject but I've been unable to find it. — CKA3KA (Skazka) ( talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just been doing a bit of research into Gliese 581 and have found that the star is also referred to as Wolf 562, so why is this alternate name not listed in this article? I know that all other star articles list all the other names, but I don't see this one here, so why not? (for confirmation of the name check out this page: [5]) -- Hibernian ( talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
HO Librae is a variable star designation. Furthermore the current way things appear to be working is to give preference to Bayer and Flamsteed designations over catalog numbers, but this does not appear to apply to variable star designations, and in any case HO Librae is not used in news articles pertaining to this star (seems to be almost universally referred to by the Gliese number in such sources). Furthermore there is the argument that since the star is not variable, the variable star designation should not be used. I moved it out of the lead paragraph for this reason. Icalanise ( talk) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Astrometry info box gives the distance as 19.9 ± 0.3 ly, whereas the opening paragraph gives the distance as 20.5 light years. Which, if either, is correct? Can someone please correct it. HumphreyW ( talk) 11:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a few concerns with this article, mainly with referencing, so I am putting the article on hold until these issues can be addressed. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer ( talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
In reviewing the planetary chart for this system, its obvious that there is a significant gap between the two outer planets that should allow for a fourth planet in between under the Titus-Bode Resonance Law (which essentially says that each planet should be twice as far from its primary as the next inner planet, on average). Is there any research on this issue that anybody can find? 75.67.80.68 ( talk) 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
the gap between the outer two planets is significant enough that under the Titus-Bode Resonance Law (which essentially says that the distance of a planet from its primary should be twice that of the next inner planet, with some adjustments for mass) there should be a fourth planet between the two outer planets, and which also puts it smack dab in the middle of the habitable zone. As it is as yet undetected, this could be a terrestrial earth-like planet, if it exists. Is there any research out there we can find that would support or disprove this possibility? 75.67.80.68 ( talk) 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed the second paragraph of the "Star" section of this article as it is merely an argument against a previous version of this paragraph that identified Gliese 581 as a BY Draconis variable type variable star as it is appears in the latest (2008) version of the General Catalogue of Variable Stars (search Gliese 581). [6] The author of this latest paragraph rewrite wants to minimize the variability of this star to improve the star's theoretical habitability. One reference he quotes is unavailable and the other is a just collection of raw data. We should stick to the variable star classification until SIMBAD and other recognized databases officially reclassify this star. I am not opposed to restoring the original paragraph, or adding a new section on new published research concerning the variability of this star, if any. Aldebaran66 ( talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (page 2 of pre-print submitted 9 September 2006)</ref>I have mixed feeling on the image: (Shortcut to image on ESO site) But technically speaking the image is incorrect on the phases of the outer planets and I don't think it offers any educational value. Then again I doubt few people look at it that closely. But I do think it is possible that the naked eye would barely make Gliese 581 d out as a small round sphere since it is less than 0.28AU away from 581e. Their have been reports of people seeing the cresent phase of Venus (66″) and the naked eye has a resolution of 1–2′. Note the ESO image makes it clear, "planet d, with the bluish colour". -- Kheider ( talk) 16:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm an avid amateur astronomer and it brings tears to my eyes to see a picture at the bottom of the star system like the one for ours. It's amazing how our knowledge has grown. Looking at the picture, I honestly stopped feeling all alone out here in this corner of the universe. So, thank you to everyone who's let us understand this - including folks here on wikipedia. - Josh Shahryar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.80.204 ( talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
EPE has updated e, saying the orbit has changed and mass and stuff. I'm not sure what the #>m># means... so I'm leaving someone else to update it... Syntheticalconnections ( talk) 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"...Gliese 581 c orbits just inside of the habitable zone of its parent star" and "Gliese 581 d ... orbits just inside of the habitable zone of its star": Surely they cannot both be "just inside of" if c orbits at 0.07 AU and d at 0.22 AU (that's ~21 million km further out). Especially as Gliese 581 d says "It was originally thought that Gliese 581 d orbits outside the habitable zone of its star. However, in 2009 the original discovery team revised its original estimate of the planet's orbital parameters, finding that it orbits closer to its star than originally believed. They concluded that the planet is within the habitable zone where liquid water could exist."
Then there's "Gliese 581 c ... is notable as it is the planet with lowest minimum mass yet discovered in the habitable zone of another star, making it the most earthlike exoplanet found to date.[18]" compared to "Gliese 581 e, ... at an estimated minimum mass of 1.9 Earths, is currently the lowest mass exoplanet identified around a normal star". Either c is in the habitale zone or it isn't and maybe it is the least massive or it isn't (c = 5.36 – 10.4 M⊕, e = 1.94 – 3.1 M⊕)
The individual planet articles seem better. 87.115.207.175 ( talk) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There was what appears to have been a premature press release from Keck Observatory at this address: http://keckobservatory.org/news/test2/ The url is interesting ("test2"?) but though the content has been removed, the page title still displays "Keck Observatory discovers the first Goldilocks exoplanet". When I initially retrieved the article, it indicated two new planets, with 581 g well within the habitable zone. Since they removed the release, I have undone my edit to the page. Woodega ( talk) 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Returned my previous edit, with corrected URL.
I've also noticed an ambiguity or contradiction in what planets are where in the habitable zone. This Wikipedia article states that Gliese 581 d is "just inside the habitable zone," yet the release from Keck states that 581 g is in the middle of the habitable zone. Gliese 581 d has a period of 66.8 days, which would mean that it orbits outside 581 g's orbit, since 581 g's orbital period is 37 days. Should 581 d's information be changed to something like "just within the outer limit of the habitable zone"? I guess I'll do some more digging for accurate details. Woodega ( talk) 22:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Chart labelled 'The Gliese 581 planetary system orbits.' ( File:GJ581orbits.svg) is now out of date, as its missing both Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g. I don't have ability to update, haven't seen any new ones yet. I considered taking it down, since its a little confusing, but decided partial visual info was better than noting. replacing this chart would be very helpful. Jvol ( talk) 04:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I will attempt to regenerate the orbital chart for the 6-planet solution. Given the range of semimajor axes it may be that the best solution is to view the system at two different scales, as I did for the view of the system of HD 10180. Incidentally you CANNOT take the eccentricities from the 4-planet solution and quote them for the same planets in the 6-planet fit. It is well-known property of multi-planet systems that unmodelled signals can manifest as extra eccentricity in the known planets, for example the 3-planet fit to the radial velocities for Mu Arae gave much higher eccentricities than the 4-planet fit. If we take the solution with 6-planets, the orbits of planets c and d should be taken as circular. Icalanise ( talk) 22:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section, link didn't get to a clear source, and the only search matches I found were blogs quoting wikipedia! Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Seeing the article A Message From Earth, I relinked it, taking the openning paragraph from there for greater clarity. Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
In October 2008, members of the networking website Bebo beamed A Message From Earth, a high-power transmission at Gliese 581 c, using the RT-70 radio telescope belonging to the National Space Agency of Ukraine. This transmission is due to arrive in the Gliese 581 system's vicinity by the year 2029; the earliest possible arrival for a response, should there be one, would be in 2049.< ref> "Zimbio Pilot - Gliese 581c". Zimbio.com. 2008-10-13. Retrieved 2009-04-23.</ref> |
The opening paragraphs describe planets c and d as Venus-like and Mars-like respectively. This is very speculative. There is no particular reason to assume that these planets are anything like Venus and Mars, or even that they are terrestrial in nature. They could easily have compositions dominated by ices rather than rock. This would make planet c completely unlike the extremely water-poor planet Venus, and provide d with a much more substantial atmosphere than Mars has. Just because a planet is located in an equivalent region of space doesn't mean it is an analogue of what we have in the same part of our Solar System. Icalanise ( talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see this data anywhere, it's rather strange. Can it be explained somehow? It would be very interesting to add this information to article (if its possible, of course).-- Beaber ( talk) 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Both are unconfirmed on the EPE. atomic 77 32 23:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a source for the epoch JD 2453152 for the Mayor et al. (2009) orbits. The arXiv version lists some JD in Table 2 (actually Table 1 in the released paper due to a misnumbering in the preprint), but it remains unclear to what these refer, and none of them equals the value given in the orbit plot.-- SiriusB ( talk) 11:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The page makes a simple error i think i am right in saying in the use of parsecs (20) over light years, a factor of 3.26x which makes a difference as to whether i can beam myself there in this lifetime without resorting to breaking the speed of light, so its relevance is actually quite large. Of course waiting to transfer from 581c to 581g probably takes 3 lifetimes so I suppose it can be forgiven. Mythole ( talk) 15:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are these crossed out? In the gliese 581 g article it also says this. The source listed is an opinion and only doubts the fact that they do not exist, there is no actual proof these planets do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.100.196 ( talk) 15:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article made several mentions of Gliese 581 being a "star system", however I find no mention of any stellar companions in its neighbourhood. I assume some may be confusing star system with planetary system a this lack of distinction which can be misleading. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 04:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The existence of Gliese 581 G and F have not yet been confirmed (In fact, they seem to be in the process of being disproved), yet the articles for the planetary companions of Gliese 581 are written as if their existence is without doubt. This needs to be fixed, and future edits that support this viewpoint without evidence need to be blocked.
VelociraptorBlade ( talk) 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I came across this article from Zeta Tucanae, and it states that Gliese 581 has a debris disk… in 2009. Was this never noticed, or what? I'm not entirely sure how to translate the data into something meaningful (infrared excesses to semi-major axes, mainly), but this going apparently entirely unnoticed by wikipedia is a bit odd. Has this been invalidated at some point? ShellfaceTheStrange ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
It's described in the two tables in this article as a "Comet belt" but is the composition of the Dust Disk so precisely known? Could it not possibly be instead a Debris Disk with a very low volatile content, like the one around Epsilon Eridani and Zeta2 Reticuli? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.226.225 ( talk) 04:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Gliese 581g officially confirmed.
News:
http://www.universetoday.com/96374/exoplanet-gliese-581g-makes-the-top-5/
http://phl.upr.edu/press-releases/fivepotentialhabitableexoplanetsnow
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 ( talk) 09:23, 25 July 2012
http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog
http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data
Here we go again... [15] 46.126.76.193 ( talk) 20:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Three planets (b,c,e), the rest is just stellar activity. [18] 77.57.25.250 ( talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/07/02/science.1253253 Time to update the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:4800:5E0:9167:112D:758D:9C9D ( talk) 11:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the articles Gliese 581 d, Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g are merged into this article. While the case for having an article for these objects (particularly the habitable zone candidates) would be clear if they were thought to exist, it now seems that all three of these detections were actually the result of stellar activity. It therefore makes sense to discuss them as part of the history of planet claims in the Gliese 581 system, but having separate articles gives undue weight to the now-disputed planetary interpretation of these radial velocity signals. 77.57.25.250 ( talk) 10:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Given the above discussion pretty clearly leans towards support, I am proceeding with the merge in the following order. 77.57.25.250 ( talk) 20:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Couple of image requests:
77.57.25.250 ( talk) 21:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Gliese 581 d ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Gliese 581 e -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 07:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Please see the paper: "Dynamical evolution and spin-orbit resonances of potentially habitable exoplanets. The case of GJ 581d." The Astrophysical Journal 761:83 (2012) ( http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/761/2/83/ )
The analysis of data, presented in this work tells that Gliese 581 f and g do not exist, while d must be real. 71.178.188.237 ( talk) 16:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The planets in this GJ 581 system are on of those that will get a common names next year. But the website created for this very task ( http://nameexoworlds.org/#planets) has some slightly different data! GJ 581 b,c on the website are pretty much identical to the data of those planets in the article (only some really minor differences in masses and orbital parameters exist). I thought that GJ 581 d on the website might be identical to our GJ 581 e here, and just has a different identifier because the previously "detected" planet d was a spuke. But actually the attributes don't fit. So either the article or nameexoworlds.org is wrong. -- Sirius3100 ( talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it's at least arguable that Gliese 581d might be real after all: see
and then this rebuttal:
but also the response to that from the authors of the first-cited paper:
-- The Anome ( talk) 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The previously dubious exoplanet GJ 581 d is back, new studies how that the plant is likely to exist. [1] Because of this I feel that it is approprte to demerge and redo the "Histroy of detections," due to this new evidence. No word on GJ 581 g's existence. Davidbuddy9 ( talk) 02:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The article on Gliese 581 e is pretty small, and is unlikely to expand in the future, so it would be better to simply merge it. MartinZ02 ( talk) 14:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gliese 581. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)