Image of a Planet:
Too Hot to be True?
By R. Cowen
 |
| Proposed planet
(arrow) could be just a star. (Terebey et al./NASA) |
"Hubble takes first image of possible planet around another star and
finds a runaway world." That was the title of a headline-making press
release issued by NASA 13 months ago. At a space agency briefing in
May 1998, astronomer Susan Terebey of the Extrasolar Research Corp.
in Pasadena, Calif., unveiled Hubble Space Telescope images that she
said might show a planet born to a pair of stars 450 light-years from
Earth (SN: 6/6/98, p. 357).
Although astronomers roundly criticized NASA for highlighting an extremely
tentative finding, the stakes were admittedly high. The images could
go down in history as the first ever of a planet outside the solar system.
Now, several astronomers have told Science News that new data
reported by Terebey at two recent meetings strongly suggest that the
object is too hot to be a planet. Instead, it is "almost certainly a
normal reddened star," says Keith S. Noll of the Space Telescope Science
Institute in Baltimore.
Terebey told Science News that she would not talk to reporters
until July. By then, she said, she will have had time to assimilate
comments from scientists who had seen her new data and submit an article
to a peer-reviewed journal.
According to astronomers who attended her latest presentations, Terebey
acknowledged that the spectrum she has obtained of the faint object,
dubbed TMR-1C, could be that of a star. However, she also suggested
that the object might be a failed star, known as a brown dwarf, or it
could still be a planet-though hotter and possibly younger than she
had thought.
Terebey's spectrum was taken at the Keck Telescopes atop Hawaii's Mauna
Kea. She presented the data on June 9 in Flagstaff, Ariz., at a meeting
on giant planets and cool stars and on June 17 at a Gordon Research
Conference in Henniker, N.H., on the origins of solar systems. Analyzing
the Keck data was hard work because the object was so dim, she previously
told Science News.
Examining a faint dot in Hubble images, Terebey and her colleagues
last year were intrigued by the object's location, at one end of a bright
trail that led to a pair of young stars. The team suggested that the
newborn stars were themselves parents and the faint object their offspring,
a planet a few times as massive as Jupiter that had been expelled from
its birthplace.
The luminous trail, Terebey proposed, was generated by the planet as
it barreled into space and pushed dust out of its way. In her team's
original scenario, the planet was about as old as its parents, a few
hundred thousand years, and at a relatively cool temperature-no more
than 1,500 kelvins.
Terebey's spectrum reveals that the object does not contain water vapor,
which should be present if its temperature is lower than 2,500 kelvins,
notes Noll. His analysis of Hubble images already hinted at that. Because
water is abundant in the cosmos and straightforward to spot in spectra,
its absence is a reliable indicator of a high temperature, he adds.
Terebey showed that the spectrum of an ordinary, low-mass star, partly
obscured by foreground dust, roughly matches her Keck spectrum of TMR-1C,
according to astronomers who heard her Flagstaff presentation.
This "implies strongly" that TMR-1C is just a background star, says
Mark S. Marley of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, an organizer
of the Flagstaff meeting. "It is a real stretch of the data to claim
anything else."
Still, Terebey told astronomers that it's possible that TMR-1C is a
young planet that's hot because it has just formed or is packing on
new material as it travels.
Peter Bodenheimer of the University of California, Santa Cruz says
that in the unlikely event that the object is a planet, it would have
a very different origin from that originally proposed. The trail would
have created the planet, instead of the planet having created the trail.
He suggests that the planet condensed out of the trail's material, which
was ejected from the disks of matter surrounding each of the parent
stars.
James W. Liebert of the University of Arizona in Tucson, who also attended
the Flagstaff meeting, said it's plausible that planets heavier than
Jupiter could be ejected as a solar system forms and stabilizes. "[But]
if the object really were of planetary mass, the nature of the possible
ejection event is so unclear [that] I wouldn't necessarily expect that
it would have a 'normal' temperature and spectrum for something of that
age," he adds.
Noll says, "In my opinion, it is a waste of time and bad science to
keep pursuing this idea [of a planet] when a much simpler and more likely
alternativea staris supported by all the evidence."
Liebert adds that a simple test, one that Terebey suggested last year,
could settle the matter. If the object is indeed a planet thrown out
by its birth parents, it should be traveling at a fair clip. "Either
it keeps on moving ... or it is a [star], which does not move," Liebert
says. Tracking the faint body with a telescope for several years should
provide the answer, he concludes.