Over at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), which is associated with Stanford University and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, a new study indicates that not only are there many so-called "nomad planets" in our galaxy, but that there may be tens of thousands of them, drifting through the Milky Way unattached to a star or your buttoned-up corporate way of life.
Nomad planets have only been confirmed in the last year or so, mostly by monitoring nearby stars to see if and when their light is "refocused" by a large passing object, like a planet. This new study is more math-based; it relies on the known gravitational pull of the entire galaxy, and how that might divide up into objects ranging in size from Pluto-sized rocks to Jupiter-sized giants. The research suggests that there may be as many as 100,000 more nomad planets than there are stars in the galaxy.
The research has some pretty interesting implications; our understanding of interstellar object behavior doesn't really include unattached planets, and the search for extraterrestrial life could be the first field to really see a change from the survey. Nomad planets don't have the light and warmth from a star to nurture life, but they actually might not even need it: with a thick atmosphere and a significantly radioactive core, they might theoretically be able to retain enough heat to serve as solo carriers of life through the galaxy.
So, if this proved correct, would it invalidate the theory of dark matter? I would think it does since dark matter is defined to be an unknown type of matter that cannot be seen.
This explanation makes more sense to me than dark matter.
Interesting idea, but the mass of hundreds of thousands of planets wouldn't come remotely close the the staggering amount of mass that astronomers have attributed to dark matter.
Oh, my mistake, 100,000 times as many planets as stars. That's a whole lot more.
Just imagine this rogue gigantic planet thing shooting a straight line across the COSMOS and with speed does not conform to most gravity rules. Then one day one of these things flies through our solar system in a completely unpredicted way and flies between earth and the sun and puts upon the earth some type of gravity effect, shadow effect. Perhaps the magnet poles on Earth move. Perhaps extreme gigantic oceans suddenly rise up. Perhaps a giant shadow comes across Earth for a time and sends us into a deep freeze....
And then it leaves....
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.
Will this make a very large impact on our perceived percentage of dark matter/dark energy in the Universe?
Amazing...But there are stars who have become runaways such as star SDSS JO90745.0+o24507 , It's currently located 362,000 light years from the center of the milky Way moving at 433 miles a second velocity or 697km per sec.due to an encounter with the black hole at the Milky Way center , flinging the star out 80 million years ago..since 2011 astronomers have discovered a dozen cosmic cannonballs in the M/W alone , even a wandering Neutron star designated RX JO822 -4300 located currently near the dog star Cirius it's moving at 0.5 % light speeed and will exit the galaxy in a few million years..the 1st spoke of object with the longer designation will exit in about 80million more years don't bother to enter coordinates..it's 20th-magnitude...about a hundred times dimer than a backyard scope can resolve.bummer huh..a 4million solar mass black hole flung it from galactic center..the new term is not "Hobo " star but slingshot stars or officially "Hypervelocity" stars(((OO)))OMNIBUS1
(((OO)))OMNIBUS1 Science is blind and dumb without leadership or funding .Our leaders would rather spend money on re election of coarse...Hitch a ride with our detractor's...
Sound judgement..Russia and China have always been trusting before ? duuuuhhhhh..
"The research suggests that there may be as many as 100,000 more nomad planets than there are stars in the galaxy." this a strange statement, there are an estimated 200 to 400 billion stars in the milky way galaxy, 100,000 more of anything would be within anyone's margin of error, must be a typo, should it be 100,000 times more nomad planets than there area stars in the galaxy? that would be alot of hobos, cheers
(((OO)))OMNIBUS1:( Well I'm bored so possibly with the gospel of "Bob Berman's" "Astronomy" mag tidbit's; that seem to answere some of the questions i'm hearing, all in one of the (50 strangest space objects) special articles, #2 on the list is OUR "accelerating universe" itself.
"dark matter":'seems the universe expanded happily after the "Big Bang", rapidly at 1st but then the gravity between every galaxy slowed things down , so of coarse Astronomers (and cosmologist) of the past had to search for a "deceleration parameter"that quantified the value of speed reduction.
"up until 1998 a inevitable heat death or "Big crunch" was postulated to be the proper eschatology of everything,when 2 teams of Astronomers studying supernovae determined the expansion slowed during the 1st half of the universes life , but stopped slowing 6-7 billion years ago and began to increase expansion to a ever increasing frenzy.
Since NO ONE knows whats going on, scientist timidly posit that space itself must have a repulsive property they call (Dark Energy)..they feel it's responsible for the big bang but lost it's dominance to (gravitational) forces.
When galaxy's grew far enough apart empty space and the "dark matter affect took back over, this Anti-gravitational force is pushing things apart seemingly forever..as 74% of the mass energy of the entire universe is in this 'dark stuff.
'NOW! pick Your hypothetical route for "HOBO" mumbo jobo..'and You probably would be just as close to the (absolute truth) ..if there even is such a perspective in a quantified multi- verse..
It seems to me that once a star goes super nova, any planets in the system may be expelled. How much mass does a star loose in a lifetime? As a stars mass decreases, so does it's hold on the orbiting planets? It's now known that a couple of planets in our solar system have traded orbits, what if some planets were tossed out altogether. I'm trying to think of all the ways planets could have been born around a star, but have become orphaned at some point. If you think about it, the possibilities seem to be that it is a common occurrence.
Guys, they completely left out the planet that is likely harboring alien life. There's a crazy vid at uncoverthebest.com
The source article also states:
"The research produced evidence that roughly two nomads exist for every typical, so-called main-sequence star in our galaxy. The new study estimates that nomads may be up to 50,000 times more common than that."
So with drchuck1s 2^11 stars, that makes 2^16 hobo planets.
I think this number is an attempt to account for the mass that is currently explained using dark matter.
Earth has been hit at least once, hence the moon. Though models suggest it wasn't a rogue planet.
The problem isn't the maths. What their calculations show is that rogue planets aren't too likely as an answer for all of the dark matter.
There must be an upper limit of rogue planets before the increasingly frequent collisions between them results in measurable amounts of dust.
Yes, it certainly sounds like he is trying to explain dark matter. The proportion of extra mass does suggest that. I think though that for that to be a valid explanation, the vast majority of these nomad objects would have to be well beyond the boundary of the visible galaxy (sort of like a galactic Oort cloud) in order to explain the orbital speeds of the stars around the galactic center, which led to the concept of dark matter. An interesting idea.
Well it's Monday and we Earthlings survived the weekend with no outer space impacts. Thank you, “I AM”, for giving us this daily bread!
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.
"Religion sees beyond the senses."
Much in the same way that my 4-year-old nephew "sees" through walls when playing hide-n-seek, and with the same result.
We know galaxies collide all the time. To me it seems obvious that many planets are left floating around and not captured by any particular star's gravity, when such calamity hits. I mean, even when two solar systems come near enough to one another to have the orbits wildly affected of all planets from both stars, it's obvious that even planets that were originally in close orbit around a star can easily get flung off to where it is no longer 'captured' by either star. BUT still, everything in a galaxy IS 'captured' (or orbiting) at least the black hole at the center of its galaxy, so nothing can really 'float' away from a galaxy, unless a result of two galaxies coliding, and leaving left over junk that is no longer 'orbiting' EITHER of the black holes, but truely free in space... where multiple black holes would have to be considered in order to calculate its orbital position at any time.
mass of the sun = 2*10^30 kilograms
mass of 100000 earths = 6*10^24*10^5 = 6*10^29 kilograms
proportion of 100000 earths to total mass of sun and 100000 earths = 23%
proposed proportion of dark matter in universe = 84%
Even if these objects are all as large as the earth, on average, they don't come close to the amount of dark matter. I suppose it all depends on the number of jupiter sized hobos.
The distance to the nearest star is 26 trillion miles, earth is on average 94 million miles from the sun, pluto is at most 4.5 billion miles from the sun and the milky way is 14 billion years old, you don't need to do the math to conclude that most objects that were going to collide have done so already.