A news item involving HD 106906 b was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 December 2013. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Could anyone find a comparison to this planet and DT Virginis c and why the latter does not contradict planet formation theories? -- Artman40 ( talk) 04:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the angular separation from 368 mas to 7.1 arc seconds. Citation: Pre-print. arXiv:1312.1265. Also, Vanessa Bailey has personally requested that the Discover(s) be changed to Vanessa Bailey et al. Eeschneider ( talk) 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The article (in the Discovery section) mentions "The initial interest in HD 106906 A was directed largely...". What is HD 106906 A? Is this a typo? Or is it something other than HD 106906 and HD 106906 b? If so, what is it? Hamish59 ( talk) 09:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
A capital A like that would indicate the primary star. It's just an unusual notation when there's no secondary star. Wily D 09:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, the photo caption had "The binary star HD 106906..." I changed it to "The star HD 106906..." since I haven't seen anything to suggest that this system has more than one stellar component (that we know of yet) iac74205 ( talk) 13:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
With regard to my change from Neptune to Pluto, I know that Pluto isn't scientifically a planet, but we need to make a fine line between what is astronomically correct, and what the man on the street who reads Wikipedia (especially when the article is on the mainpage) knows.
This is why I highlighted everyman in my summary. As far as the man on the street is concerned, Pluto is the solar systems farthest planet. As we are discussing a planet that is also in a far orbit, why are we comparing it to a planet that is not in a far orbit at all, but in fact out of all available planets it's in the closest one possible?
If you really hate the use of Pluto, I suggest the change to "Earth" as - again using the everyman level of knowledge.
It just seems wrong to discuss a far orbit planet, and then use a near orbit planet as a yardstick. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 11:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens, you have confused me. Your edit changed
to
which I reverted. What has Mercury got to do with it?
Secondly, your references (above) are not great: I cannot get a date on the 1st one, but the 2nd No. 10 - Winter/Spring 1988 is out of date, 3rd Updated Aug 13, 2006 is out of date and 4th Copyright ©1998-2010 may be out of date given the definition was passed on 24 August 2006. Did you cherry pick your answeres from a Google search? Hamish59 ( talk) 14:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible that this object wasn't originally formed orbiting its star at all, but is instead a captured rogue planet or other such object? That would explain both the mass difference and the large orbit. 70.99.104.234 ( talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1) Please change the Projected Separation from 368+-9 millarcseconds to 7.11+/-0.03 arcseconds. The info comes from the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1265
2) Also, because this is a directly imaged planet whose orbit has not yet been mapped, it is not entirely appropriate to list its semi-major axis. The projected separation of 650 AU is correct, but we cannot definitively determine the semi-major axis yet.
Thanks! 128.196.209.73 ( talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Quote: "The very large separation of this planet from its primary has garnered significant attention from the astronomical community". This statement at the intro is sensationalism. I cannot edit this article. "significant" term is fleeting, so I suggest delete the word "significant" until there is a suitable reference that justifies this. Yeah, I know you guys live for this stuff, but it has to pass the test of time too. -- 96.35.104.135 ( talk) 04:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The informal petition to rename this planet "Gallifrey" in homage to Doctor Who has been covered by the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Mail, and io9. I believe this is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability, and that the petition thus warrants coverage in the article, similar to how the Kerberos (moon) article includes information about a similar (and unsuccessful) pop culture-inspired name campaign. I've tried to keep it as brief and to-the-point as possible. If you can think of a way to improve the way the information is handled, please do. I doubt the petition will achieve its aims, but I think it's notable given the media coverage. - Guessing Game ( talk) 06:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all the IAU does not allow the public to name planets. The fact that someone created a petition to the IAU to rename this planet will be promptly ignored that that organization. Since nothing will ever become of this science fiction show request, I fail to see how it is newsworthy. Besides this fact, this planet has nothing to do with a character from a science fiction show. The section on public response is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted. This page was put into protected mode to prevent users from putting the Doctor Who information into the article. Why is it being allowed now? Martin Cash ( talk) 19:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Although the IAU was orginally opposed to naming exoplanets [1], the IAU changed its stance in August 2013, inviting members of the public to suggest names for extrasolar planets. [2]
The article claims a surface temperature of 1800K, but the reference [3] gives 95K. Given how far away it is from its parent star, 1800K seems very warm - and would mean that it is generating heat from within itself, as it isn't getting that sort of energy from its parent star. 86.14.9.87 ( talk) 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies - 95K is the disk temperature. However, the mass appears to be marginal between the ranges for gas giant planets vs. brown dwarf stars (possible fusion of deuterium or lithium). Have we got enough of a spectrum to determine whether there is a lithium line? 86.14.9.87 ( talk) 17:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The surface temperature is listed as 1800 K (1526.8 °C), that must mean that it is generating heat through nuclear fusion which would make it a star. So why exactly is it listed as a planet instead of a star? I know that all scientific journals have it listed as a planet so I'm not questioning it, just curious as to why. Atotalstranger ( talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The "HD" in the infobox links out to the Harvard Revised Catalog (HR). Shouldn't it link to the Henry Draper Catalog (HD)? Jleous ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
By IAU definition objects like this must sweep out part of its formation disc to be considered a planet. Since this object almost certainly did not, it is a planetary mass companion not a planet. Why is the article being changed from planetary mass companions back to planet? That edit should be reverted. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise. Martin Cash ( talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Martin is right, and I’m reverting this to the previous version using more careful and accurate language. Unless this object has been dynamically scattered to its current orbit by a (more massive, unseen) planet located interior to it, it almost assuredly formed like a binary star. The authors do not find evidence for such a second, perturbing planet located at smaller angular separations. Until and unless such an object is found, the proper description is “planet-mass companion”, not ‘planet’.
Note that the actual paper, not ‘secondary sources’, (usually written by highly enthusiastic media people) describes this object as a “planetary-mass companion” and further states that “in situ formation in a binary star-like process is more probable” than others. That is, it likely formed in situ like a binary star, not like Jupiter/Saturn or even as a disk instability-formed planet. Supporting this view (a point they didn’t make), is that we have actual observations of protoplanetary disks around some stars and know roughly their physical size. At least for analogues to the Sun, protoplanetary disks are typically about ~150-200 AU in size: very very few have a lot of mass extending to ~500-700 AU (c.f. Andrews and Williams 2007). Nowhere in the text do they flat-out call this thing an “exoplanet”. Rightly, ‘planet-mass companion’ is used throughout. They may call HD 106906 a star with a ‘planetary system’ but this doesn’t mean they think it’s a planetary system just because of the imaged companion. There are many ‘planetary systems’ without imaged planets but just debris disks (e.g. HD 61005, HD 32297, HD 15115, HR 4796A, etc). Perhaps the media reports have them calling this a ‘planet’. But having been through this drill with the media before I’m not surprised they used (or were edited to use) as simple language as possible to communicate their findings. The object is still important even if it isn’t a planet.
As an aside, the fact that its mass appears to be under 13 Mj just means it satisfies a necessary but not sufficient condition for planethood. There are many planet-mass objects (that is, M < 13 Mj) that do not appear to have formed out of a protoplanetary disk but as a by-product of the same formation process that gives rise to binary stellar and brown dwarf companions or just single stars/brown dwarfs. Calling these objects (and HD 106906 b) ‘planets’ reflects neither how the authors described them nor how the vast majority researchers in the field think of them. A couple of notable examples -- 2MASS J04414489+2301513 B (Todorov et al. 2007), PSO J318.5338–22.8603 (Liu et al. 2013), and 2MASS J035523.37+113343.7 (Faherty et al. 2013). 2632cgn ( talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Stating that you prefer "secondary" sources to primary ones makes little sense when the secondary sources in question are media reports, not separate peer-reviewed papers, conference proceedings, etc. from researchers in the field presenting data or new analysis shaping our understanding of this object. Again, the paper itself does not call this object a planet, but a planet-mass companion. It says so throughout. One of the primary conclusions of the paper is that it probably had a binary star-like formation. In other words, the source material advances no argument in favor of this being a bona fide exoplanet but clear arguments in favor of it being something else. As to the "consensus of published sources", numerous previous papers provide the groundwork that this is very plausibly a 'planet-mass companion' but not an exoplanet. The references I mention cover this at length. Beyond those, applying the criteria from previous work analyzing these issues in detail (Kratter, Murray-Clay, and Youdin 2010 and later works) places this object well outside of the range of planets like Jupiter, Saturn, RV-detected companions, and imaged planets like HR 8799 bcde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
One final note about "secondary" vs. primary sources. On the "identifying reliable sources" page, we see that the "secondary" sources explicitly favored by Wikipedia are "review articles, monographs, or textbooks" (bullet point 1 under "Scholarship"). There is no review article describing HD 106096 b (and, indeed, no other peer-reviewed paper yet). The page further describes the role of "News sources", saying "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." That is, we should prefer the description of this object as given in the peer-reviewed paper over news/media reports. 2632cgn ( talk) 23:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
No "exoplanet" is not justified. Period. The lead is not 'jargon'. "Planet-mass companion" means just that: a companion with a mass consistent with that of a planet. That's no more jargonesque than calling it an exoplanet in the first place. I think it's perfectly fine to say that this object has been called an exoplanet in news/media reports and I'm not suggesting striking the amusing Dr Who references. It's also quite true that the atmospheric properties of HD 106096 b may be a good window into understanding the atmospheres of bona fide exoplanets. It's young, low mass, self-luminous and probably has similar cloud properties/gravity to other bona fide planets. But "exoplanet"? No. That is misinformation. 2632cgn ( talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That's my point. It is already sourced. The paper describes this object as a "planet-mass companion". Nowhere in the paper is it described as an "exoplanet", and one of the primary results of the paper (that the object probably formed like as a binary star) would preclude calling it an 'exoplanet' under normal terms.
Not also that "planet mass companion" and "exoplanet" are not mutually exclusive terms. Rather "planet mass companion" is a broader term, simply focused on a measured/inferred physical property of an object, and includes both bona fide planets and other things that happen to be planet mass. For example, HR 8799 b is a "planet-mass companion" that most people (nearly all) those in the field consider to be a bona fide directly-imaged exoplanet. In other words, "planet mass companion" is neutral as to whether the object is a bona fide planet or something else.
I think the compromise that is inclusive but retains scientific integrity is to keep the current language as "planet mass companion" since that term is scientifically accurate, was the one actually used in the paper, and is neutral regarding the true nature of this object. But then in the "Possible Formation Mechanism" section discuss the interpretation. There, state that an 11 Mj companion is consistent with the IAU definition of the masses of exoplanets and in that sense this object could be considered an imaged exoplanet. But that given its separation and likely formation mechanisms, the object likely formed like low-mass binary stars, although the companion to primary mass ratio is unusually low.
Concerning references, there are a number that differentiate between a "planet mass companion" and an "exoplanet" explicitly or discuss how star formation processes can yield planet-mass objects. Here's a partial list: Luhman (2008), Todorov et al. (2010), Kratter et al. (2010), Currie et al. (2011, 2013a,b), Janson et al. (2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
112.198.64.24 posted this comment on 4 January 2014 ( view all feedback).
who discovered the 106906 b?
Vanessa Bailey and her international team of astronomers at the Las Campanas Observatory in the Atacama Desert of Chile. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HD 106906 b. 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) 06:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
A news item involving HD 106906 b was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 December 2013. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Could anyone find a comparison to this planet and DT Virginis c and why the latter does not contradict planet formation theories? -- Artman40 ( talk) 04:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the angular separation from 368 mas to 7.1 arc seconds. Citation: Pre-print. arXiv:1312.1265. Also, Vanessa Bailey has personally requested that the Discover(s) be changed to Vanessa Bailey et al. Eeschneider ( talk) 22:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The article (in the Discovery section) mentions "The initial interest in HD 106906 A was directed largely...". What is HD 106906 A? Is this a typo? Or is it something other than HD 106906 and HD 106906 b? If so, what is it? Hamish59 ( talk) 09:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
A capital A like that would indicate the primary star. It's just an unusual notation when there's no secondary star. Wily D 09:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, the photo caption had "The binary star HD 106906..." I changed it to "The star HD 106906..." since I haven't seen anything to suggest that this system has more than one stellar component (that we know of yet) iac74205 ( talk) 13:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
With regard to my change from Neptune to Pluto, I know that Pluto isn't scientifically a planet, but we need to make a fine line between what is astronomically correct, and what the man on the street who reads Wikipedia (especially when the article is on the mainpage) knows.
This is why I highlighted everyman in my summary. As far as the man on the street is concerned, Pluto is the solar systems farthest planet. As we are discussing a planet that is also in a far orbit, why are we comparing it to a planet that is not in a far orbit at all, but in fact out of all available planets it's in the closest one possible?
If you really hate the use of Pluto, I suggest the change to "Earth" as - again using the everyman level of knowledge.
It just seems wrong to discuss a far orbit planet, and then use a near orbit planet as a yardstick. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 11:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Chaheel Riens, you have confused me. Your edit changed
to
which I reverted. What has Mercury got to do with it?
Secondly, your references (above) are not great: I cannot get a date on the 1st one, but the 2nd No. 10 - Winter/Spring 1988 is out of date, 3rd Updated Aug 13, 2006 is out of date and 4th Copyright ©1998-2010 may be out of date given the definition was passed on 24 August 2006. Did you cherry pick your answeres from a Google search? Hamish59 ( talk) 14:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible that this object wasn't originally formed orbiting its star at all, but is instead a captured rogue planet or other such object? That would explain both the mass difference and the large orbit. 70.99.104.234 ( talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1) Please change the Projected Separation from 368+-9 millarcseconds to 7.11+/-0.03 arcseconds. The info comes from the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1265
2) Also, because this is a directly imaged planet whose orbit has not yet been mapped, it is not entirely appropriate to list its semi-major axis. The projected separation of 650 AU is correct, but we cannot definitively determine the semi-major axis yet.
Thanks! 128.196.209.73 ( talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Quote: "The very large separation of this planet from its primary has garnered significant attention from the astronomical community". This statement at the intro is sensationalism. I cannot edit this article. "significant" term is fleeting, so I suggest delete the word "significant" until there is a suitable reference that justifies this. Yeah, I know you guys live for this stuff, but it has to pass the test of time too. -- 96.35.104.135 ( talk) 04:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The informal petition to rename this planet "Gallifrey" in homage to Doctor Who has been covered by the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Mail, and io9. I believe this is in keeping with Wikipedia's policies on notability and verifiability, and that the petition thus warrants coverage in the article, similar to how the Kerberos (moon) article includes information about a similar (and unsuccessful) pop culture-inspired name campaign. I've tried to keep it as brief and to-the-point as possible. If you can think of a way to improve the way the information is handled, please do. I doubt the petition will achieve its aims, but I think it's notable given the media coverage. - Guessing Game ( talk) 06:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all the IAU does not allow the public to name planets. The fact that someone created a petition to the IAU to rename this planet will be promptly ignored that that organization. Since nothing will ever become of this science fiction show request, I fail to see how it is newsworthy. Besides this fact, this planet has nothing to do with a character from a science fiction show. The section on public response is non-encyclopedic and should be deleted. This page was put into protected mode to prevent users from putting the Doctor Who information into the article. Why is it being allowed now? Martin Cash ( talk) 19:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Although the IAU was orginally opposed to naming exoplanets [1], the IAU changed its stance in August 2013, inviting members of the public to suggest names for extrasolar planets. [2]
The article claims a surface temperature of 1800K, but the reference [3] gives 95K. Given how far away it is from its parent star, 1800K seems very warm - and would mean that it is generating heat from within itself, as it isn't getting that sort of energy from its parent star. 86.14.9.87 ( talk) 15:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies - 95K is the disk temperature. However, the mass appears to be marginal between the ranges for gas giant planets vs. brown dwarf stars (possible fusion of deuterium or lithium). Have we got enough of a spectrum to determine whether there is a lithium line? 86.14.9.87 ( talk) 17:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The surface temperature is listed as 1800 K (1526.8 °C), that must mean that it is generating heat through nuclear fusion which would make it a star. So why exactly is it listed as a planet instead of a star? I know that all scientific journals have it listed as a planet so I'm not questioning it, just curious as to why. Atotalstranger ( talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The "HD" in the infobox links out to the Harvard Revised Catalog (HR). Shouldn't it link to the Henry Draper Catalog (HD)? Jleous ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
By IAU definition objects like this must sweep out part of its formation disc to be considered a planet. Since this object almost certainly did not, it is a planetary mass companion not a planet. Why is the article being changed from planetary mass companions back to planet? That edit should be reverted. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise. Martin Cash ( talk) 15:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Martin is right, and I’m reverting this to the previous version using more careful and accurate language. Unless this object has been dynamically scattered to its current orbit by a (more massive, unseen) planet located interior to it, it almost assuredly formed like a binary star. The authors do not find evidence for such a second, perturbing planet located at smaller angular separations. Until and unless such an object is found, the proper description is “planet-mass companion”, not ‘planet’.
Note that the actual paper, not ‘secondary sources’, (usually written by highly enthusiastic media people) describes this object as a “planetary-mass companion” and further states that “in situ formation in a binary star-like process is more probable” than others. That is, it likely formed in situ like a binary star, not like Jupiter/Saturn or even as a disk instability-formed planet. Supporting this view (a point they didn’t make), is that we have actual observations of protoplanetary disks around some stars and know roughly their physical size. At least for analogues to the Sun, protoplanetary disks are typically about ~150-200 AU in size: very very few have a lot of mass extending to ~500-700 AU (c.f. Andrews and Williams 2007). Nowhere in the text do they flat-out call this thing an “exoplanet”. Rightly, ‘planet-mass companion’ is used throughout. They may call HD 106906 a star with a ‘planetary system’ but this doesn’t mean they think it’s a planetary system just because of the imaged companion. There are many ‘planetary systems’ without imaged planets but just debris disks (e.g. HD 61005, HD 32297, HD 15115, HR 4796A, etc). Perhaps the media reports have them calling this a ‘planet’. But having been through this drill with the media before I’m not surprised they used (or were edited to use) as simple language as possible to communicate their findings. The object is still important even if it isn’t a planet.
As an aside, the fact that its mass appears to be under 13 Mj just means it satisfies a necessary but not sufficient condition for planethood. There are many planet-mass objects (that is, M < 13 Mj) that do not appear to have formed out of a protoplanetary disk but as a by-product of the same formation process that gives rise to binary stellar and brown dwarf companions or just single stars/brown dwarfs. Calling these objects (and HD 106906 b) ‘planets’ reflects neither how the authors described them nor how the vast majority researchers in the field think of them. A couple of notable examples -- 2MASS J04414489+2301513 B (Todorov et al. 2007), PSO J318.5338–22.8603 (Liu et al. 2013), and 2MASS J035523.37+113343.7 (Faherty et al. 2013). 2632cgn ( talk) 18:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Stating that you prefer "secondary" sources to primary ones makes little sense when the secondary sources in question are media reports, not separate peer-reviewed papers, conference proceedings, etc. from researchers in the field presenting data or new analysis shaping our understanding of this object. Again, the paper itself does not call this object a planet, but a planet-mass companion. It says so throughout. One of the primary conclusions of the paper is that it probably had a binary star-like formation. In other words, the source material advances no argument in favor of this being a bona fide exoplanet but clear arguments in favor of it being something else. As to the "consensus of published sources", numerous previous papers provide the groundwork that this is very plausibly a 'planet-mass companion' but not an exoplanet. The references I mention cover this at length. Beyond those, applying the criteria from previous work analyzing these issues in detail (Kratter, Murray-Clay, and Youdin 2010 and later works) places this object well outside of the range of planets like Jupiter, Saturn, RV-detected companions, and imaged planets like HR 8799 bcde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
One final note about "secondary" vs. primary sources. On the "identifying reliable sources" page, we see that the "secondary" sources explicitly favored by Wikipedia are "review articles, monographs, or textbooks" (bullet point 1 under "Scholarship"). There is no review article describing HD 106096 b (and, indeed, no other peer-reviewed paper yet). The page further describes the role of "News sources", saying "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." That is, we should prefer the description of this object as given in the peer-reviewed paper over news/media reports. 2632cgn ( talk) 23:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
No "exoplanet" is not justified. Period. The lead is not 'jargon'. "Planet-mass companion" means just that: a companion with a mass consistent with that of a planet. That's no more jargonesque than calling it an exoplanet in the first place. I think it's perfectly fine to say that this object has been called an exoplanet in news/media reports and I'm not suggesting striking the amusing Dr Who references. It's also quite true that the atmospheric properties of HD 106096 b may be a good window into understanding the atmospheres of bona fide exoplanets. It's young, low mass, self-luminous and probably has similar cloud properties/gravity to other bona fide planets. But "exoplanet"? No. That is misinformation. 2632cgn ( talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
That's my point. It is already sourced. The paper describes this object as a "planet-mass companion". Nowhere in the paper is it described as an "exoplanet", and one of the primary results of the paper (that the object probably formed like as a binary star) would preclude calling it an 'exoplanet' under normal terms.
Not also that "planet mass companion" and "exoplanet" are not mutually exclusive terms. Rather "planet mass companion" is a broader term, simply focused on a measured/inferred physical property of an object, and includes both bona fide planets and other things that happen to be planet mass. For example, HR 8799 b is a "planet-mass companion" that most people (nearly all) those in the field consider to be a bona fide directly-imaged exoplanet. In other words, "planet mass companion" is neutral as to whether the object is a bona fide planet or something else.
I think the compromise that is inclusive but retains scientific integrity is to keep the current language as "planet mass companion" since that term is scientifically accurate, was the one actually used in the paper, and is neutral regarding the true nature of this object. But then in the "Possible Formation Mechanism" section discuss the interpretation. There, state that an 11 Mj companion is consistent with the IAU definition of the masses of exoplanets and in that sense this object could be considered an imaged exoplanet. But that given its separation and likely formation mechanisms, the object likely formed like low-mass binary stars, although the companion to primary mass ratio is unusually low.
Concerning references, there are a number that differentiate between a "planet mass companion" and an "exoplanet" explicitly or discuss how star formation processes can yield planet-mass objects. Here's a partial list: Luhman (2008), Todorov et al. (2010), Kratter et al. (2010), Currie et al. (2011, 2013a,b), Janson et al. (2012). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
112.198.64.24 posted this comment on 4 January 2014 ( view all feedback).
who discovered the 106906 b?
Vanessa Bailey and her international team of astronomers at the Las Campanas Observatory in the Atacama Desert of Chile. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 05:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HD 106906 b. 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) 06:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)