Puzzling Super-Dense Space Objects Could Be a New Type of Planet

A simulation created to understand a Kepler mission discovery of wandering ice giants suggests that they could be remnants of bodies like Neptune that came too close to their parent stars

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Mysterious dense bodies outside the Solar System could be the remnants of ice giants similar to Neptune that wandered too close to their suns, according to results presented this week at a meeting on exoplanets at the Royal Society in London.

Among the most puzzling finds of NASA’s Kepler space mission to find exoplanets, which launched in 2009, are bodies too heavy for their size. In some of the rare cases in which astronomers can estimate both the mass and the size of distant planets discovered by the probe, the objects have radiuses similar to that of Earth but are denser than pure iron.

No conventional theories about planet formation can account for such densities in planets of this size. “There is no way to explain that in the Solar System,” says Olivier Grasset, a geophysicist at the University of Nantes in France.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Fossil worlds
Grasset and his collaborators now say that the strange bodies could be the “fossil cores” of planets that were once much larger, an idea that was first proposed by researchers in 2011. These planets would have been ice giants that formed in the outer parts of a star system and then migrated inwards — as their orbits were affected by interactions with surrounding gas and dust — perhaps getting as close to their suns as Mercury is to ours.

The hotter temperatures closer to the stars, Grasset explains, would evaporate the outer layers of the planets, which are made mainly of volatile components such as hydrogen, helium and water. The leftover cores would consist of rock and metal, just like the bulk of Earth, and could weigh up to several times as much as our planet, making them what scientists call super-Earths.

But these cores formed under the weight of their planets’ outer layers, under pressures of around 500 gigapascals — 5 million times atmospheric pressure on Earth — and typical temperatures of about 6,000 kelvin. As a result, the materials in these cores should be more compacted, and denser, than Earth.

Quick change
Together with his colleagues Antoine Mocquet, a planetary scientist also at Nantes, and Christophe Sotin, a planetary geologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, Grasset created a computer simulation to test the idea.

The team found that if the outer layers of an ice giant are removed over billions of years, the materials would ‘relax’, expanding back to more ordinary densities. But if the stripping occurred over a geologically short time, the sudden cooling would keep the core locked into its dense state essentially forever. “If the process is short, you end up with a very compressed super-Earth,” says Grasset.

Lars Stixrude, a geologist at University College London, calls the idea “fascinating” — although he warns that science’s understanding of the behavior of materials under the extreme temperatures and pressures of an ice-giant core is still incomplete. Grasset agrees that there are large uncertainties in his team’s calculations, especially in the rate of relaxation of the naked cores. But, he adds, he and his colleagues made conservative assumptions.

William Borucki, a space scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, and leader of the Kepler mission, says that the idea is plausible, but that there could be other ways for the outer layers of an ice giant to be ripped away. The process could be the result of a cataclysmic collision with another planet-sized object, for example. Or perhaps the high-density cores could suggest that planets form through exotic processes similar to those of star formation. Whatever the implications, he says, it is exciting that Kepler’s findings are upending old assumptions. “This is why we do science.”

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on March 13, 2013.

Davide Castelvecchi is a staff reporter at Nature who has been obsessed with quantum spin for essentially his entire life. Follow him on X @dcastelvecchi

More by Davide Castelvecchi

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe