Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy and Amateur Science
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 07-12-2015, 02:08 PM
Eratosthenes's Avatar
Eratosthenes (Peter)
Trivial High Priest

Eratosthenes is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 392
Exoplanets - False Positives - NASA's Kepler Observatory

‘False positives:’ More than half of NASA’s Kepler exoplanets aren’t actually planets

https://www.rt.com/usa/324815-half-k...s-not-planets/

"A five-year study of exoplanet data captured by the Kepler space observatory found that half the exoplanet candidates aren’t planets at all. They are either too small (brown dwarfs) or eclipsing binary stars (failed stars)"

I will need to update my Ipad App called Exoplanet which currently has 1,979 confirmed exoplanets in its data base.


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-12-2015, 03:02 PM
rustigsmed's Avatar
rustigsmed (Russell)
Registered User

rustigsmed is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia
Posts: 3,996
thanks Peter,

is it just me or is that article very confusing?

A five-year study of exoplanet data captured by the Kepler space observatory found that half the exoplanet candidates aren’t planets at all. They are either too small (brown dwarfs) or eclipsing binary stars (failed stars).

Righton, eclipsing binary stars are failed stars now. brown dwarfs are too small to be planets??

Wouldn't they have been making these detections all the time, its their interpretation of the data rather than the data presenting false positives? All Kepler is doing is detecting changes in starlight brightness yes, no?

Cheers

russ
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-12-2015, 03:30 PM
michaellxv's Avatar
michaellxv (Michael)
Registered User

michaellxv is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,581
Yes a bit confusing, I had to read some of it at least twice.

“As far as I’ve read, their analysis only applies to KOIs, and they did not rule out any fully-confirmed planets,” Coughlin added.

The number of confirmed planets hasn't been reduced. They were just working through the candidate planets and worked out a lot of them were something else. Nothing wrong with that.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-12-2015, 03:46 PM
rustigsmed's Avatar
rustigsmed (Russell)
Registered User

rustigsmed is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Australia
Posts: 3,996
so saying 'false positive' is a little misleading, its simply a lower proportion of detections flagged for further investigation are actually planets. the detected change in light is still real it is just that eclipsing stars or brown dwarfs are being detected rather than planets...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-12-2015, 04:52 PM
Eden's Avatar
Eden (Brett)
Registered Rambler

Eden is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 399
This is exactly as was expected, which is why they are only candidates. Having examined thousands of light curves from the Kepler science data, it comes as no surprise to me that there are so many false positives. Eclipsing binary stars and short period exoplanets often have very similar light curves.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-01-2016, 07:05 PM
KenGee's Avatar
KenGee (Kenith Gee)
Registered User

KenGee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Laura
Posts: 599
Peter don't trust sites that can't get basic things right, and or don't put links to the source.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 03:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement