New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

New Analyses Resurrect Contested Exoplanet Claim

Fomalhaut b looked like an exoplanet to some astronomers and like dust to others. But new analyses strengthen the planet view. John Matson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Seeing is believing. And then disbelieving. And maybe believing once more.

The exoplanet Fomalhaut b was the first one photographed with visible light. Researchers using the Hubble Space Telescope spotted it in 2008, orbiting a star 25 light-years away. The sighting made big news, because almost all exoplanet discoveries before or since were indirect detections. But with Fomalhaut b, astronomers could actually see the planet.

Well, some astronomers. Researchers using the Spitzer Space Telescope could not see Fomalhaut b at all in infrared light. They concluded that what Hubble had seen was probably just a transient dust cloud.


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.


Now two new studies posted at arxiv.org have strengthened the planetary argument. Two teams reanalyzed the data and confirmed that there is something there. But what? One group concluded that the object could be the debris from a smashup of two small objects, or it could be a planet surrounded by a disk of dust. [Raphaël Galicher et al, Fomalhaut b: Independent Analysis of the Hubble Space Telescope Public Archive Data] The other group favors the hypothesis that Fomalhaut b is an exoplanet, albeit one shrouded in dust. [Thayne Currie et al, Direct Imaging Confirmation and Characterization of a Dust-Enshrouded Candidate Exoplanet Orbiting Fomalhaut]

Paul Kalas, one of the planet’s original discoverers, says he will have new data to show in January. Until then, it’s either Fomalhaut or Fomal-naught.

—John Matson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe