vipph win

December 3, 2024 This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlightedthe following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: fact-checked peer-reviewed publication trusted source proofread by Pennsylvania State University An unusual planetary system with three known ultra-low density "super-puff" planets has at least one more planet, according to new research led by researchers from Penn State and Osaka University. The research team set out to study Kepler-51d, the third planet in the system, with NASA's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) but almost missed their chance when the planet unexpectedly passed in front of its star two hours earlier than models predicted. After scrutinizing new and archival data from a variety of space and Earth-based telescopes, the researchers found that the best explanation is the presence of a fourth planet, whose gravitational pull impacts the orbits of the other planets in the system. The new planet's discovery is detailed in a paper appearing in The Astronomical Journal . "Super puff planets are very unusual in that they have very low mass and low density," said Jessica Libby-Roberts, Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds Postdoctoral Fellow at Penn State and co-first author of the paper. "The three previously known planets that orbit the star Kepler-51 are about the size of Saturn but only a few times the mass of Earth, resulting in a density like cotton candy. We think they have tiny cores and huge atmospheres of hydrogen and helium, but how these strange planets formed and how their atmospheres haven't been blown away by the intense radiation of their young star has remained a mystery. We planned to use JWST to study one of these planets to help answer these questions, but now we have to explain a fourth low-mass planet in the system." When a planet passes in front of—or transits—its star when viewed from Earth, it blocks some of the star's light, causing a slight decrease in the star's brightness. The duration and amount of that decrease gives clues to the planet's size and other characteristics. Planets transit when they complete an orbit around their star, but sometimes they transit a few minutes early or late because the gravity from other planets in the system tugs on them. These minor differences are known as transit timing variations and are built into astronomers' models to allow them to accurately predict when planets will transit. The researchers said they had no reason to believe the three-planet model of the Kepler-51 system was inaccurate, and they successfully used the model to predict the transit time of Kepler-51b in May 2023 and followed-up with the Apache Point Observatory (APO) telescope to observe it on schedule. "We also tried to use the Penn State Davey Lab telescope to observe a transit of Kepler-51d in 2022, but some poorly timed clouds blocked our view right as the transit was predicted to start," Libby-Roberts said. "It's possible we could have learned something was off then, but we had no reason to suspect that Kepler-51d wouldn't transit as expected when we planned to observe it with JWST." The team's three-planet model predicted that Kepler-51d would transit around 2 a.m. EDT in June 2023, and the researchers prepared to observe the event with both JWST and APO. Discover the latest in science, tech, and space with over 100,000 subscribers who rely on Phys.org for daily insights. Sign up for our free newsletter and get updates on breakthroughs, innovations, and research that matter— daily or weekly . "Thank goodness we started observing a few hours early to set a baseline, because 2 a.m. came, then 3, and we still hadn't observed a change in the star's brightness with APO," Libby-Roberts said. "After frantically re-running our models and scrutinizing the data, we discovered a slight dip in stellar brightness immediately when we started observing with APO, which ended up being the start of the transit—2 hours early, which is well beyond the 15-minute window of uncertainty from our models." When the researchers analyzed the new APO and JWST data, they confirmed that they had captured the transit of Kepler-51d, albeit considerably earlier than expected. "We were really puzzled by the early appearance of Kepler-51d, and no amount of fine-tuning the three-planet model could account for such a large discrepancy," said Kento Masuda, associate professor of earth and space science at Osaka University and co-first author of the paper. "Only adding a fourth planet explained this difference. This marks the first planet discovered by transit timing variations using JWST." To help explain what is happening in the Kepler-51 system, the research team revisited previous transit data from NASA's Kepler space telescope and NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). They also made new observations of the inner planets in the system, including with the Hubble Space Telescope and the California Institute of Technology's Palomar Observatory telescope, and obtained archival data from several ground-based telescopes. Because the new planet, Kepler-51e, has not yet been observed transiting—perhaps because it may not pass in the line of sight between its star and Earth—the researchers noted how important it was to obtain as much data as possible to support their new models. "We conducted what is called a 'brute force' search, testing out many different combinations of planet properties to find the four-planet model that explains all of the transit data gathered over the past 14 years," Masuda said. "We found that the signal is best explained if Kepler-51e has a mass similar to the other three planets and follows a fairly circular orbit of about 264 days—something we would expect based on other planetary systems. Other possible solutions we found involve a more massive planet on a wider orbit, though we think these are less likely." Accounting for a fourth planet and adjusting the models also changes the expected masses of the other planets in the system. According to the researchers, this impacts other inferred properties about these planets and informs how they might have formed. Although the inner three planets are slightly more massive than previously thought, they are still classified as super puffs. However, it is unclear if Kepler-51e is also a super puff planet, because the researchers have not observed a transit of Kepler-51e and therefore cannot calculate its radius or density. "Super puff planets are fairly rare, and when they do occur, they tend to be the only ones in a planetary system," Libby-Roberts said. "If trying to explain how three super puffs formed in one system wasn't challenging enough, now we have to explain a fourth planet, whether it's a super puff or not. And we can't rule out additional planets in the system either." Because the researchers believe Kepler-51e has an orbit of 264 days, they said that additional observing time is needed to get a better picture of the impacts of its gravity—or that of additional planets—on the three inner planets in the system. "Kepler-51e has an orbit slightly larger than Venus and is just inside the star's habitable zone, so a lot more could be going on beyond that distance if we take the time to look," Libby-Roberts said. "Continuing to look at transit timing variations might help us discover planets that are further away from their stars and might aid in our search for planets that could potentially support life." The researchers are currently analyzing the rest of the JWST data, which could provide information about the atmosphere of Kepler-51d. Studying the composition and other properties of the three inner planets could also improve understanding of how the unusual ultra-low-density super puff planets formed, the researchers said. In addition to Libby-Roberts and Masuda, who led the Kepler-51d team, the international research team includes John Livingston at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, who coordinated most of the ground-based follow-ups; many ground-based observers; the Kepler-51b team; and the Palomar team. More information: Kento Masuda et al, A Fourth Planet in the Kepler-51 System Revealed by Transit Timing Variations, The Astronomical Journal (2024). DOI: 10.3847/1538-3881/ad83d3 Journal information: Astronomical Journal Provided by Pennsylvania State UniversityList of Inhabited Islands in Maldives – Must Visit!LAS VEGAS — At the largest annual gathering of the basin’s water managers on Thursday, speakers invoked “Dr. Strangelove,” “The Hunger Games” and “Alice in Wonderland” to convey the dire, darkly dystopian and illusory state of the negotiations for how the Colorado River will be shared in the future. The seven representatives from the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower Basin states (California, Arizona and Nevada) are deadlocked in disagreement and for the first time in recent years did not appear on stage together at the Colorado River Water Users Association Conference at the Paris Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. This year, representatives from the two basins had separate panels, underscoring their failure thus far to reach a consensus on how to share shortages and operate the nation’s two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead, after 2026. Each took the opportunity to double down and reiterate their differing positions in competing proposals submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in March. Lower Basin water managers say all seven states that use the Colorado River must share cuts under the driest conditions, while Upper Basin officials maintain they already take cuts in dry years because they are squeezed by climate change and shouldn’t have to share additional cuts because their states have never used the entire 7.5-million-acre-foot apportionment given to them by the Colorado River Compact. “In the Upper Basin, it’s the Hunger Games,” said Colorado’s top negotiator Becky Mitchell. “We are hungry all the time. There is never enough.” During their nine-month-long standoff, the two basins have not moved any closer to a consensus. Mitchell said she had expected the seven state representatives to have their customary meeting before the conference started. “I’ve been here since Monday thinking that we would be meeting all day Tuesday and that did not occur,” Mitchell told the Colorado delegation at a breakfast Thursday morning. “I am hopeful that we can still come together again to talk and work towards a mutually agreeable solution.” The current river management guidelines were developed in response to drought conditions in the first years of the 20th century and set shortage tiers based on reservoir levels that spell out which states in the Lower Basin will take cuts as levels fall. But these guidelines did not go far enough to protect reservoir levels from drought and climate change, and in 2022 Lake Powell flirted with falling below a critical elevation to make hydropower. Perhaps to spur the basin states toward a solution, in November, Reclamation released an outline of five potential paths forward, including a “No Action” alternative, which is unlikely to be chosen. None of the management options adopted either the Upper or Lower basin proposals, but instead include a “basin hybrid” that is a mash-up of elements from both. Carly Jerla, a senior program manager with Reclamation, gave an overview of each of the options Thursday and said the agency intends to publish a report with more detail on the alternatives by the end of the year. Maximum cuts could range from 2.1 million acre-feet to 4 million acre-feet and could be shared based strictly on the priority of who has the oldest rights or distributed proportionally across all seven states. Upper Basin officials said in a prepared statement that they cannot speak directly to Reclamation’s potential alternatives and need more information before they can analyze them. “The Upper Division States continue to stand firmly behind the concepts embodied in the Upper Division States’ Alternative, which performs best according to Reclamation’s own modeling and directly meets the purpose and need of the federal action,” the statement reads. Reclamation officially kicked off the post-2026 guidelines development process in June 2023 with a Notice of Intent. The current guidelines expire at the end of 2026 and new ones must be in place by August of that year, meaning water managers have just over a year and a half to complete the National Environmental Review Act process for implementing new management rules. “We have a year and a half left to identify a preferred alternative, put out a draft EIS, put out a final EIS, develop the implementation and adopt a record of decision,” Jerla said. “So we need to be moving as a basin a lot faster in the second half than we did in our first half.” On their panel, Lower Basin representatives gave an overview of their proposed alternative, plus their water conservation tallies over the past two decades, some of which were forced by the shortage agreements under the current guidelines. “We’re asking the Upper Basin to come with us to help further protect the river, but only in those really hot, dry (years),” said Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s top negotiator. At this year’s conference, there was talk about the longtime elephant in the room, something Colorado River water managers have previously said they want to avoid at all costs: litigation over the Colorado River Compact. Upper Basin water managers believe that as long as they don’t use more than the 7.5 million acre-feet allocated to them, they will not violate the compact. But Lower Basin officials believe that regardless of the Upper Basin’s use, the upstream states could be subject to a compact call if they don’t deliver 7.5 million acre-feet a year. As river flows continue to decline due to climate change, the basin states could be inching closer to a compact call, which could force cuts on the Upper Basin. Buschatzke addressed his September request of Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs to set aside $1 million for litigation in case of a compact call. “Compact compliance is out there, it is a potential issue,” Buschatzke said. “I have to do my due diligence for all potential outcomes.” But the principals remained committed to finding agreement among the seven states. Top Nevada negotiator John Entsminger said he wants the Upper Basin states to know he’s not looking for a fight. “I want everybody from the Upper Basin to hear from Nevada: We believe compromise is possible,” he said. “We think it’s the first, second and third best option. But we need a dance partner. So let’s get back to the table and make this happen.”

Twisted light: The Edison bulb has purpose again

New Credit Card launched, Lifetime free and no joining fees

None