Do objects discovered by photometric means really exist?

[higginsdj]

Do objects uncovered by photometric means (eclipsing events) really exist (or uncovered by any menas other than direct imaging)?

There are Binary Stars, Exoplanets and Minor Planet Satellites all 'discovered' by the existance of eclisping events in observed lightcurves and other methods that do not involve direct imaging. But does this mean that the object actually exists?

Views of professional astronomers appear rather polarised - specifically in the planetary sciences (Minor Planet Satellites). The MPC and CBAT are of the view that a satellite does not exist unless it has been directly observed (but the CBAT is happy to publish a CBET to say that the 'binary nature has been uncovered' and to provide system parameters! Those professionals acutally involved in the research, however, are of the view that satellites have actually been discovered.

Is this the same view/dicotomy held in the other fields (Binary Stars and Exoplanets)?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Do objects uncovered by photometric means (eclipsing events) really exist (or uncovered by any menas other than direct imaging)?

There are Binary Stars, Exoplanets and Minor Planet Satellites all 'discovered' by the existance of eclisping events in observed lightcurves and other methods that do not involve direct imaging. But does this mean that the object actually exists?

Views of professional astronomers appear rather polarised - specifically in the planetary sciences (Minor Planet Satellites). The MPC and CBAT are of the view that a satellite does not exist unless it has been directly observed (but the CBAT is happy to publish a CBET to say that the 'binary nature has been uncovered' and to provide system parameters! Those professionals acutally involved in the research, however, are of the view that satellites have actually been discovered.

Is this the same view/dicotomy held in the other fields (Binary Stars and Exoplanets)?

Cheers

I think it's a case of some of these scientists trying to be overly cautious and not wanting to come out and go with an announcement in case they're made to look the fool. Although, in some cases, it's a matter of professional jealousy in that they didn't find the object themselves and they want the others to "prove it".

If you've gone through all the necessary tests for some object's possible existence and it stacks up against most, if not all, of them then it's likely that it's there. That's the general consensus amongst most scientists.

[higginsdj]

I do find it interesting that they have a requirement that it be directly imaged. One could say, for example, it does not exist unless I have seen it with my own eyes - but at some point one has trusted the technology to believe that if the technology has seen it, then they believe it exists. So is it a trust issue for technology/method!

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Pretty much. If you were to always use the criterion "only with my own eyes", then hardly anything out there would be said to exist!!!!.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

I do find it interesting that they have a requirement that it be directly imaged. One could say, for example, it does not exist unless I have seen it with my own eyes - but at some point one has trusted the technology to believe that if the technology has seen it, then they believe it exists. So is it a trust issue for technology/method!

Cheers

Most of the discoveries are based on science along with Photometrics. A lot of discoveries eg: Kepler 1200 candidates each single one is to be closely examine using other methods before confirmation.