Extremely cool that they were able to predict when to look for additional, undetected planets and then actually find them.
Also, despite being a huge nerd for astronomical scales, I'm still easily shocked at them. I didn't expect a system to exist with six (!) larger-than-Earth planets in stable sub-Mercury orbits around a sun-like star. My mind tells me there's not enough space, that they should be ripped apart by each other or the star. Yet it's actually one of the most peaceful, gentle systems we've ever found.
Jupiter has four stable resonant satellites on the order of 1% of Earth's mass within an orbital radius of 1% of Earth's orbit. It's plausible by that example.
I'm only further confused. I literally don't have any idea if the system you're describing is similar to the one in the article without looking up the data and doing the math. You claimed they're similar, so I figured you had done the math, and I wanted you to show me so I could believe you. If you take that as offensive, after making a technical comment, I don't know what the point of this conversation is.
I guess I messed up in thinking that the comment was a response to my mention of the tiny orbits of these planets then. Because if it was, it was not a good response, since I still don't even know if the system mentioned is in actually similar to the one in TFA. So I guess it was just an offhand comment about something unrelated and I should have ignored it.
The parent isn't trying to prove this to you like an argument in a debate. They are providing you with a potential direction for further research in case you are interested in learning more.
I did, when I began by discussing technical aspects of an article about astronomy? I wish I could edit my first reply for better tone because it was difficult to write, but we're not allowed to edit comments here so the misunderstandings continue.
Oh get over yourselves, it wasn't that bad. Text is in any case notoriously difficult for interpreting tone. People on this site constantly ask for technical clarifications in odd ways, but suddenly the tedious hive mind decides it's rude.
Not an expert, but the wikipedia article on orbital resonance[0] mentions Laplace's discovery of a 3 body resonance, Io–Europa–Ganymede. They are indeed OOM 1% of Earth's mass (Ganymede being 2.5% for example[1]).
> Of course, we don't know how many sibling planets crashed into their sun earlier...
My understanding is that it would be 0. A planet can't fall into its sun without being disturbed, because the planets and their sun all coalesce from the same rotating disc of material. If any planet had been disturbed enough to slow down and crash into the sun, it's hard to imagine that happening without the slightest disturbance to the 6 extant planets.
Could have been 7 or 9 wonky planets, then some fell into their sun and maybe one flew off or was torn apart then these remaining six wiggled around a bit from all that into resonance.
> Yet it's actually one of the most peaceful, gentle systems we've ever found
You shouldn't assume that. With so much synchronicity I have to wonder if it creates any forces that would result in things like wildly high tides if a planet had any water on it, or increased quakes or some other phenomena caused by the alignments. It could be far from peaceful.
It's not an assumption - I meant gentle on a solar-system scale. You're right that the surface of the planets could be chaotic, but it sounded like they had massive atmospheres and potentially small rocky cores.
Or to be more precise, any purpose to moving bodies would be better served with a different solution.
Goal: Announce selves to greater universe.
Method: Occlude parent star in a way judged not natural.
Dumb Solution: Destroy an astronomical amount of energy and time to reconfigure a system.
Real Solution: Just build star shades.
------------
Goal: Create a way to travel easily in the system.
Method: Use gravitation wells of bodies in the system.
Dumb Solution: Destroy an astronomical amount of energy and time to reconfigure a system to make slingshots predictable.
Real solution: Slingshots and other orbital movements are already predictable, use sails and Hohmann transfers for cheap movement, and fusion + ion / antimatter + ion drives for fast movement.
------------
Goal: Engineer a star (e.g. starlifting, nicoll dyson beam, star moving with a statite shell, etc...)
Method: Use material from orbiting bodies
Dumb Solution: destroy an astronomical amount of energy and time to reconfigure a system to move bodies closer to star
Real Solution: Send material from bodies into desired location with mass drivers.
Is this relevant to the Fermi paradox? If 1% of observed systems are estimated to still be in resonance, that means that 99% are not and have had some kind of significant event to knock them out of resonance.
> Is this relevant to the Fermi paradox? If 1% of observed systems are estimated to still be in resonance, that means that 99% are not and have had some kind of significant event to knock them out of resonance.
The planets in our Solar System don't exhibit this type of resonance (some of their moons do), and we are here, so 'no'
These planets all have very short orbital periods, between 9 and 55 days. By Kepler’s third law (p^2 ~ a^3), we know that these planets are all very close to their star. Much closer than Mercury is to the Sun (p ~ 116 days). Their close proximity leads to gravitational interactions when they pass by one another. This gradually leads to a very stable orbital resonance due to constructive interference.
I spent a significant portion of my life trying to deeply understand resonance across multiple domains... with the goal of understanding the role of resonance in human interactions. Here's what I came up with, if you are into the topic.
The prospect of analyzing aggregate human behavior with recourse to models from physical science immediately put me in mind of the "Chemical Analogue Theory of the Body Politic," as espoused by one of the characters at a dinner party, in Bruce Sterling's _The Artificial Kid_:
--
“The Chemical Analogue Theory is, of course, an analogy,” said Manies. He touched a stud on the heavy bracelet on his right wrist and in rushed his secretary Chalkwhistle, a neuter. Manies took pencil and slate from the neuter and began sketching as he talked. “As you are well aware, dear Saint Anne, the human body is an immensely complex system, in fact an ecosystem with its own flora and fauna. The same is true of the Body Politic, our human society. Their reactions, their structures are very similar. Now, the history of the human body is the history of its organic macromolecules, its linkages (pardon me) of separate atoms. Similarly, the history of the Body Politic is the history of many small groups and coteries, linked groups of friends. Of course, I would not go so far as to equate a single personality with a single atom. In most cases people would be better considered as small molecules; acids, bases, salts, et cetera. I often consider them atoms for simplicity’s sake, however.
“Note that the effect of a single atom in the human body is almost negligible; but if that atom is included in the right molecule, its influence may be crucial! It does not matter which particular atom enters a molecule, you understand; the important thing is that it be the correct kind of atom, and attached in the correct molecular framework! It is the framework that counts, you see, just as the important thing is the relationships within groups of friends, rather than the friends themselves. Of course some atoms are comparatively rare, just as some personality types are comparatively rare, and they can exert a disproportionate influence; but it is the linkages that count.
“I regard myself as an enzyme, constantly endeavoring to link molecular groups into newer and more potent configurations. This breakfast is just such an attempt.”
This report reminded me of the Seven Suns artifact in A. C. Clarke's The City and the Stars [1]. OK, this is planets, not stars, but it's cool that Clarke anticipated this apparently stable configuration.
As I recall it (not having payed close attention), it got a lot of attention because a lot of planets were discovered around that star, but I don't remember hearing or reading about them being in resonance.
Call it naivety, but I still think there is something to the Titius-Bode observation, with the deviance from the pattern suggestive of events early in our solar system, so it's exciting to see these astronomers forming a similar view about resonance by default interrupted by chaos.
If you go down the rabbit hole of looking at nearby stars and want a jumping off point, I mused some similar observations on another thread here:
66 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadAlso, despite being a huge nerd for astronomical scales, I'm still easily shocked at them. I didn't expect a system to exist with six (!) larger-than-Earth planets in stable sub-Mercury orbits around a sun-like star. My mind tells me there's not enough space, that they should be ripped apart by each other or the star. Yet it's actually one of the most peaceful, gentle systems we've ever found.
It's one thing to ask "hey, what satellites are you talking about, I'm unaware", vs. the tone of expectation and admonishment presented.
It's a technical discussion. Asking for proof of a technical claim that confused me is correct, not rude.
Who decided that? When was this negotiated?
Reread your comments and ask yourself these questions.
I did, when I began by discussing technical aspects of an article about astronomy? I wish I could edit my first reply for better tone because it was difficult to write, but we're not allowed to edit comments here so the misunderstandings continue.
If you decide it's a technical discussion but no one else does, is it a technical discussion?
Why does your decision matter more than others'?
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganymede_(moon)
So your intuition that they should affect each other is correct, but the end result less catastrophic.
Of course, we don't know how many sibling planets crashed into their sun earlier...
My understanding is that it would be 0. A planet can't fall into its sun without being disturbed, because the planets and their sun all coalesce from the same rotating disc of material. If any planet had been disturbed enough to slow down and crash into the sun, it's hard to imagine that happening without the slightest disturbance to the 6 extant planets.
Space has, like, infinite possibilities.
You shouldn't assume that. With so much synchronicity I have to wonder if it creates any forces that would result in things like wildly high tides if a planet had any water on it, or increased quakes or some other phenomena caused by the alignments. It could be far from peaceful.
https://github.com/pedrosbmartins/downtoearth
And you can change visualizations in the dropdown, there is a special one for Pluto's eccentric orbit :)
How might resonant orbits, a flock of rocky planets with fat atmospheres and a good hot sun serve a hypothetical starsystem engineer?
Or to be more precise, any purpose to moving bodies would be better served with a different solution.
Goal: Announce selves to greater universe.
Method: Occlude parent star in a way judged not natural.
Dumb Solution: Destroy an astronomical amount of energy and time to reconfigure a system.
Real Solution: Just build star shades.
------------
Goal: Create a way to travel easily in the system.
Method: Use gravitation wells of bodies in the system.
Dumb Solution: Destroy an astronomical amount of energy and time to reconfigure a system to make slingshots predictable.
Real solution: Slingshots and other orbital movements are already predictable, use sails and Hohmann transfers for cheap movement, and fusion + ion / antimatter + ion drives for fast movement.
------------
Goal: Engineer a star (e.g. starlifting, nicoll dyson beam, star moving with a statite shell, etc...)
Method: Use material from orbiting bodies
Dumb Solution: destroy an astronomical amount of energy and time to reconfigure a system to move bodies closer to star
Real Solution: Send material from bodies into desired location with mass drivers.
That is a very crowded space in orbit close to this star!
The planets in our Solar System don't exhibit this type of resonance (some of their moons do), and we are here, so 'no'
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbot.2022.8504...
The prospect of analyzing aggregate human behavior with recourse to models from physical science immediately put me in mind of the "Chemical Analogue Theory of the Body Politic," as espoused by one of the characters at a dinner party, in Bruce Sterling's _The Artificial Kid_:
--
“The Chemical Analogue Theory is, of course, an analogy,” said Manies. He touched a stud on the heavy bracelet on his right wrist and in rushed his secretary Chalkwhistle, a neuter. Manies took pencil and slate from the neuter and began sketching as he talked. “As you are well aware, dear Saint Anne, the human body is an immensely complex system, in fact an ecosystem with its own flora and fauna. The same is true of the Body Politic, our human society. Their reactions, their structures are very similar. Now, the history of the human body is the history of its organic macromolecules, its linkages (pardon me) of separate atoms. Similarly, the history of the Body Politic is the history of many small groups and coteries, linked groups of friends. Of course, I would not go so far as to equate a single personality with a single atom. In most cases people would be better considered as small molecules; acids, bases, salts, et cetera. I often consider them atoms for simplicity’s sake, however.
[1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_and_the_Stars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
https://fritzo.org/live#a=dmFyIHJhdGlvcyA9IFsyLzMsIDIvMywgMi...
Reduced to 50% speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uSzL0nPr9M
If you go down the rabbit hole of looking at nearby stars and want a jumping off point, I mused some similar observations on another thread here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35874704#35885529