Cover Image: January 2001 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Lost Worlds [Preview]

Evidence for the maverick view that extrasolar planets are really small stars















Share on Tumblr

PURPORTED PROTOPLANET

PURPORTED PROTOPLANET, hanging on at the lower left from a star system in Taurus, was later shown to be an unrelated background star. Each technique for finding planets has its potential for error, so astronomers must always seek independent corroboration. Image: S. TEREBEY Extrasolar Research Corp. AND NASA

PASADENA, CALIF.--"It's not even wrong" was physicist Wolfgang Pauli's famous putdown for a theory he regarded as implausible and inconsequential. For the past several years, it has been most astronomers' response to the ideas of David C. Black. The researcher from the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston is the most outspoken skeptic of the discovery of planets around other sunlike stars. He thinks the planets are actually misidentified stars, and he has stuck to that position despite the failure of his predictions, the weight of scientific opinion and an almost total lack of observational support. His colleagues whisper that his planet doesn't go all the way around his star.

Now, for the first time, some evidence for Black's view has emerged. At the Division for Planetary Sciences conference in Pasadena last October, veteran planet hunter George D. Gatewood of the University of Pittsburgh Allegheny Observatory presented the results of a study he conducted with Black and then graduate student Inwoo Han. They checked whether the parent stars of the purported planets swayed from side to side, the sign of a cosmic do-si-do with partners too small to be seen directly. In many cases, the team concluded, the swaying motion was strong enough that the partners must be fairly heavy--brown dwarfs or other smallish stars, it would seem. At the least, the group has stirred a debate over selection biases in the planet searches and spiced up the broader discussion over what exactly a planet is.

In the 1980s the name of David Black was practically synonymous with extrasolar planets. He was once the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's search. But his reputation started to slide in 1995 when planet hunting became planet finding. None of the new worlds resembled anything in our solar system. Black took this as a sign that they weren't planets after all. Their mass distribution and orbital characteristics, he asserted, look rather like those of stars. William D. Heacox of the University of Hawaii at Hilo sympathizes with that view, but says most astronomers now think Black is clinging to outmoded ideas. If nature created odd planets, even ones with starlike orbits, so be it. Accept it and move on.


This article was originally published with the title Lost Worlds.



Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

Comments

Add Comment
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Lost Worlds: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X