Top 5 Most Recent Articles
Top 5 Most Popular Articles

NEWS by Monica Young
How Many Unbound Planets in Milky Way?
Life as we know it exists on a cozy planet in a stable orbit around a sun shining brightly in its sky. But a new study hints that the most common life in the universe might exist deep inside eternal-night worlds far from any star, adrift in the icy dark of interstellar space.
Researchers at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC) at Stanford University estimate that "nomad" planets could outnumber stars by as many as 100,000 to 1. Ejected from their home stellar system, the wandering planets now free-float through the Milky Way. Earlier estimates were more like a handful to 1, though previous studies have only counted unbound planets more massive than Jupiter.
To estimate the number of unbound planets as small as Pluto that could be roaming the galaxy, Louis Strigari (KIPAC), lead author of the study, began with a basic rule of nature: where a few big objects are found, there are many more small, just like a few boulders may be surrounded by thousands of pebbles. Strigari and colleagues calculated the number of unbound planets by extrapolating from the small number detected so far by direct imaging and by gravitational microlensing.
Direct imaging has severe limits because planets are so faint. Microlensing offers more promise. It looks for the characteristic brightening and fading of a background star when an object, even one as wimpy as Pluto, passes nearly in front of it and bends its light slightly by gravity. So far, 24 planet-mass objects have been detected by microlensing 14 bound to their parent stars, 10 apparently not. Microlensing offers hope for detection of loose objects large and small even if they are completely dark, and even at great distances across the galaxy.
Media outlets have jumped on the vast number of loose planets predicted by this study. But the authors themselves acknowledge the large uncertainty in their result. The statistics remain so weak that the group’s lower limit is still one loose planet for each star in the Milky Way.
"There is no evidence for a large population of unbound planets, but then again there is nothing to rule it out," says Scott Gaudi (The Ohio State University), expert on gravitational microlensing and extrasolar planets, who was not involved with the study.
Exoplanet specialists think that some 80% of planetary systems go through an early period of gravitational chaos that flings some of their worlds into interstellar space. The survivors are left in a mess: in highly elongated orbits that are often not even in the same plane, as exoplanet hunters are discovering. Our solar system was one of the minority that avoided such a violent episode.
Still, skeptics have a hard time imagining how tens of thousands of objects larger than Pluto could originate for each star regardless of whether they stay with it or get flung off. Our solar system has only 17 known objects that qualify eight planets, seven large moons, and the two largest Kuiper Belt objects.
Better statistics for unbound planets may come from the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), two gigantic sky-survey projects that may begin within the next decade or so.
"It's not implausible that a few nomads, most not much different than the size of Pluto, might lie within one light-year of the sun," says Strigari.
If more planets wander interstellar space than orbit stars, what might that mean for life in the universe? As it turns out, not all who wander are lost. Even with no sun in the sky, life could still eke out an existence under a thick atmosphere or ice crust at the depth where the temperature is pleasant, maintained for billions of years by the heat flowing from the planet's interior. Microbial life, at least, might thrive under these conditions.
All of this raises a question: If a planet leaves the system in which it was born, is it still a planet? The literature seems to give a qualified "yes," using terms like free-floating or rogue planets, though Strigari and colleagues prefer the term "nomad planet."
Monica Young has joined Sky & Telescope as an editorial intern. She is a recently minted astronomy PhD (from Boston University) with an extensive background in X-ray astronomy, education, and science writing.
The Milky Way likely hosts billions, and possibly trillions, of unbound planets, some of which may have atmospheres thick enough to support bacterial life. Loose planets may even outnumber stars in the galaxy, but a more precise count awaits future telescopes such as WFIRST and LSST.
Caltech / NASA
To estimate the number of unbound planets as small as Pluto that could be roaming the galaxy, Louis Strigari (KIPAC), lead author of the study, began with a basic rule of nature: where a few big objects are found, there are many more small, just like a few boulders may be surrounded by thousands of pebbles. Strigari and colleagues calculated the number of unbound planets by extrapolating from the small number detected so far by direct imaging and by gravitational microlensing.
Direct imaging has severe limits because planets are so faint. Microlensing offers more promise. It looks for the characteristic brightening and fading of a background star when an object, even one as wimpy as Pluto, passes nearly in front of it and bends its light slightly by gravity. So far, 24 planet-mass objects have been detected by microlensing 14 bound to their parent stars, 10 apparently not. Microlensing offers hope for detection of loose objects large and small even if they are completely dark, and even at great distances across the galaxy.
Media outlets have jumped on the vast number of loose planets predicted by this study. But the authors themselves acknowledge the large uncertainty in their result. The statistics remain so weak that the group’s lower limit is still one loose planet for each star in the Milky Way.
"There is no evidence for a large population of unbound planets, but then again there is nothing to rule it out," says Scott Gaudi (The Ohio State University), expert on gravitational microlensing and extrasolar planets, who was not involved with the study.
Exoplanet specialists think that some 80% of planetary systems go through an early period of gravitational chaos that flings some of their worlds into interstellar space. The survivors are left in a mess: in highly elongated orbits that are often not even in the same plane, as exoplanet hunters are discovering. Our solar system was one of the minority that avoided such a violent episode.
Still, skeptics have a hard time imagining how tens of thousands of objects larger than Pluto could originate for each star regardless of whether they stay with it or get flung off. Our solar system has only 17 known objects that qualify eight planets, seven large moons, and the two largest Kuiper Belt objects.
Better statistics for unbound planets may come from the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), two gigantic sky-survey projects that may begin within the next decade or so.
"It's not implausible that a few nomads, most not much different than the size of Pluto, might lie within one light-year of the sun," says Strigari.
If more planets wander interstellar space than orbit stars, what might that mean for life in the universe? As it turns out, not all who wander are lost. Even with no sun in the sky, life could still eke out an existence under a thick atmosphere or ice crust at the depth where the temperature is pleasant, maintained for billions of years by the heat flowing from the planet's interior. Microbial life, at least, might thrive under these conditions.
All of this raises a question: If a planet leaves the system in which it was born, is it still a planet? The literature seems to give a qualified "yes," using terms like free-floating or rogue planets, though Strigari and colleagues prefer the term "nomad planet."
Monica Young has joined Sky & Telescope as an editorial intern. She is a recently minted astronomy PhD (from Boston University) with an extensive background in X-ray astronomy, education, and science writing.
Posted by Monica Young, February 29, 2012
The following comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sky Publishing.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
First comments (from 27)
Science fiction
Posted by Paul Kinzer
February 29, 2012 At 08:41 PM PST
Decades ago, when I was young and had dreams of writing science fiction, I imagined that there might be dark, lonely worlds between the stars. I came up with an idea that these worlds might have evolved huge creatures that communicated, whale-like, via sound waves deep under the frozen surfaces, and that intrepid explorers on some of them would have found a way to break through to the surface. And, who knows how, they found others like themselves throughout the galaxy, and finally came into contact with us when an earth ship lands on one of their worlds.
This was long before 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home', and, though I don't remember the specific germ of the idea, I recall it came from something I read in an essay by Isaac Asimov.
Solar origin only?
Posted by Henrik
February 29, 2012 At 10:41 PM PST
Very interesting but I have one small problem with this research as reported. It seems the authors assume that the origin of "nomad planets" must be a solar system. Not so. Have they forgotten their own pebble analogy when it comes to the big stellar nurseries? For every star born, there must be hundreds if not thousands of knots with less than the required mass to form even a brown dwarf.
Pluto's Non-Wimpyness
Posted by Mike Wrathell
March 1, 2012 At 07:11 AM PST
Dr. Young:
Congratulations on your recent Ph. D.
I must take exception with you calling Pluto "wimpy." If you want to be taken seriously as a scientist and writer, piling on Pluto by following in the footsteps of wannabe-killer of Pluto Mr. Mike Brown is not the way to do it.
Do you ever want to speak to the planetary scientists working on NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto. What do you think they think about that little potshot you tossed Pluto's way?
Pluto has been maligned enough by Mr. Brown, a man who refused to acknowledge that Mr. Chad Trujillo and Mr. David Rabinowitz co-discovered Eris with him. His credibility as a scientist has suffered as a result of his narcissistic behavior, and I would hate to see you, too, fall into that trap.
Please show Pluto the respect it deserves.
Truly,
Mike Wrathell, Esq. & Wikipedia-listed Artist
Planet formation and Pluto
Posted by Monica Young
March 1, 2012 At 07:32 AM PST
Henrik, you raise a good question. Stars and brown dwarfs do indeed form from the direct collapse of a gas cloud. However, the gas cloud (or region thereof) has to be above a critical mass to collapse. So while stars and objects as large as several Jupiter masses can form directly from the cloud, smaller objects have to form in the gas disk around a star.
Mike, I do apologize for any disrespect to Pluto, none was meant! I meant only to emphasize the incredible power of gravitational microlensing. Can you imagine trying to image a Pluto-sized object floating alone in interstellar space? My point was only that gravitational microlensing, especially when done with a telescope as powerful as WFIRST, could find very small objects from very far away.
Apology Accepted
Posted by Mike Wrathell
March 1, 2012 At 12:05 PM PST
Dear Monica,
Apology accepted on behalf of Pluto. LOL! Yes, Pluto is only 2/3rd the size of the Moon, but it does have four known moons, hydrostatic equilibrium, a core, and perhaps an ocean or two! Pretty good for a guy only 7 miles or so wider in diameter than Eris according to Bruno Sicardy's calculations! Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of New Horizons, and an IAU member who believes Pluto as a dwarf planet (he coined the term) is also a planet said that "barring a mishap," New Horizons will measure Pluto's diameter, too. Hopefully, the data will show that Pluto is indeed larger than Eris, and put a rest to a lot of the negativity that Mr. Brown has been tossing around ever since the IAU refused to give Xena/Eris the respect he felt it deserved. I support the replanetization of Pluto and Ceres, and full planethood for all dwarf planets in our solar system, by the way. Yes, they are hard to see, but Earth is probably hard to see from Pluto, too. I sure hope the Plutonians do not think we are wimps! I think they might not be too happy with the IAU, though! But, there are a lot of proud Pluto huggers around! It is even in the Urban Dictionary now! Hope to see you in Honolulu at the IAU's General Assembly in August 2015! I will be the guy with the "Replanetize Pluto!" sign! Truly, Mike.
Nomad Comets?
Posted by Martian Bachelor
March 1, 2012 At 12:26 PM PST
If Oort Clouds routinely form with stars and planetary systems, shouldn't there be an even *larger* population of nomad extra-solar comets, which would be identifiable because of their hyperbolic orbits?
My understanding is it's not really clear if even one or a few such comets has ever been observed. For those known with perihelia inside the Earth's orbit, Comet McNaught (C/2008 J4), e = 1.0272, has the largest eccentricity, which isn't very much larger than 1, and may therefore be a result of gravitational effects within the solar system.
So, has anybody run similar sorts of calculations for comets as they're doing here for nomad planets? IOW, should we be worried yet that we're not seeing enough free-range comets in our part of the galaxy as would be expected?
Nomad Planets
Posted by BMayfield
March 2, 2012 At 05:33 AM PST
So, the incredible srinkage of our vantage continues. If true, this estimate means that in the set of all planets, we live on one of the mere 0.001% that orbit stars. Would this potential addition resolve the missing mass problem in astrophysics? And, what's next? Is inter-galactic space packed with planets???
Welcome
Posted by Jim DeCamp
March 2, 2012 At 10:42 AM PST
Hi Monica,
Delightful article. I see a bright future for you at S&T. Hope you are here for a long, long time
well done
Posted by promytius
March 2, 2012 At 12:26 PM PST
A very well-written, balanced, and informative article. I very much enjoyed reading this, thanks.
Orphan Planets
Posted by Stan Kerns
March 2, 2012 At 01:15 PM PST
And, were this true, just how many planets would each and every star have to have lost if the orphans outnumber the stars by a 100,000 to 1? People really need to step back and look at their logic.
|
|
|
||
|
|
Date:
|



Other links: + digg | + reddit | + del.icio.us | + rss
comments (27)