Exomoons and the mass of exoplanets

[Ed Joyce]

There is an ongoing issue with the density of exoplanets. My proposition is that exoplanets are being discovered that have one eighth of the expected density and I have produced a video that sheds some light on why that might be the case.

 

Recent press releases from the Kepler mission state

 

"Like 19 earlier finds by other groups, four of the exoplanets are unexpectedly lightweight for their size. Although they are about 40% larger than Jupiter, all four are far less dense, ranging from 0.166 grams per cubic centimeter to 0.894 g/cm³. (Jupiter, with its rocky core, has a density of 1.326 g/cm³.) "

 

If we multiply the density by eight for a comparison we get a figure of 1.328 - 7.152 is very close to that of the range in the solar system. In the solar system gas giants have a mass of typically 1.2 and rocky planets about 5.0.

 

The question is why is this figure of one eighth important. It is also the figure for dark matter which is 7/8 ths of all matter. My proposition is that there is a 'dark matter illusion' that affects every object in the universe outside our solar system. One of the important implications of this is that exomoons will be found to be of low density, approximately 0.2 - 0.4 g/cm3

 

The information can be found at spintheory dot wordpress dot com. Apologies for the lack of a link but some websites do not like youtube/wordpress links.

 

Ed Joyce

[Moontanman]

Are all exoplanets less dense than we see in our solar system? For your hypothesis to be true all exoplanets would have to be of such light weight and what about stars, shouldn't stars appear to less dense as well? Our sun is unusually rich in heavy elements, it would seem to follow that it's planets would be as well.

[Ed Joyce]

All normal exoplanets follow the one eighth rule. Kepler 10b is an exception, however it is 20x closer than Mercury to its sun. For regular exoplanets the one eighth rule seems to hold.

 

Ed

 

The question

 

"shouldn't stars appear to less dense as well?"

 

is a good one. 'Dark matter' is added to make up for the lack of mass in the galaxy. The issue of the density of stars is explained in the video. The mass of stars is based on our sun and the HR diagram. The problem is that there is not enough mass as a result.

 

Ed

[Arch2008]

Dark Energy makes up 72% of the universe, while Dark Matter makes up 23% and the more familiar matter is 4.6%. So DM is 83% of all matter and the DM to matter ratio is 5/6, not 7/8.

 

“All normal exoplanets follow the one eighth rule.”

 

The press release is about 19 exoplanets that have been confirmed from Kepler’s observations. The number of exoplanets confirmed from other sources numbers in the hundreds. So “all normal exoplanets” is a little bigger set than you seem to think.

 

No “one eighth rule” exists. The effect of DM has been confirmed by the WMAP.

[Ed Joyce]

It is correct as you point out that my concept of 'dark matter illusion' requires that the spilt of dark energy/dark matter/matter needs to be 75/21.875/3.125. The current expected split is 72/23/4.6. If these figures cannot be challenged it will provide a signifant problem for my proposition.There are, however a number of assumptions made in the calculation of the number of atoms in the universe. I am only comfortable with calculations based on working out the number of galaxies and the number of stars in each galaxy, ie direct observation. I believe that when using this method the number that I require falls within the margin of error. None the less the objection raised does remain a major problem as things stand.

 

In response to the issue of exoplanets outside the 19 in the press release:

 

Exoplanets most of which are discovered through transit show a wide range of densities. Generally these are close to their stars and the similarity of these obects to planets in the solar system is unclear. There is no system similar to the solar system for which densities are available so there is no direct comparison that can be made.

 

In the case of 'Hot Jupiters', however, they are less dense than Jupiter. As an example Kepler 7b is eight times as diffuse as Jupiter. This is the same ratio as dark matter to regular matter. If you check out 'hot Jupiters' on Wikipedia you can get more details.

 

The accepted theory is that this is not a dark matter effect but 'due to high levels of insolation'.This means that the planet expands under the influence of its star/sun and becomes less dense. It is impossible to disprove that this is the case. As a result the hot Jupiters do not provide clear evidence for my proposition. I don't believe, however, that this insolation effect is proven.

 

Exomoons should provide more conclusive evidence one way or the other. In the case of moons they are not expected to be gaseous and therefore if they are of low density a 'hot Jupiter' type of explanation would not be feasible. Although monitoring the density of exoplanets will shed some light on the issue it is exomoons that will provide the evidence that I am looking for. The reason for posting the video is that Kepler creates a real possibility of exomoon discovery. I accept that it is scappy and not that clear, and will post a more detailed video when I have absorbed the feedback from the initial one.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Ed Joyce

[Ed Joyce]

I would like to respond in detail to clarify that WMAP does follow the "one eighth rule".

 

In order to understand the answer to this question, and resolve what looks initially like a conflict between my proposition and WMAP data, it is first necessary to understand the dispute that broke out between cosmologists and astronomers in the 1990s about the age of the universe. This was referred to as the age crisis. The issue that was that the oldest items in the universe cannot be older than the of the universe. At this time the age of the universe was thought to be 9 billion years. My proposition is that this would lead to a radius of 9 billion light years (and will deal with inflation related issues if my proposal withstands scrutiny). Based on radioactive decay the age of some stars was at the time thought to be 18 billion years, meaning that that the radius of the universe would be 18 billion years in my proposition.

 

In order to resolve this issue two modifications were made which led to the figure we have today which is half way between these numbers at 13.5 billion years as the age of the universe. The group I would term the ‘cosmologists’ used the higher figure and the ‘astronomers’ the lower figure. The first change made by the ‘cosmologists’ was that the age of the oldest objects was adjusted downwards. The second was that the density of the intergalactic gas was made thicker than that required for an 18 billion light year radius universe. This allowed for the current date of 13.5 billion year old universe.

 

There is, however a third option. This is the idea that there are two separate ages for particles based on their spin. Particles related to atoms have a spin of ½ and forces/rays related to radioactivity have a spin of 1. If it is accepted that this is the case then in the ‘simple/two clock’ version of my proposition the universe consists of two distinct constituent parts that overlap. The universe that we see has a 9 billion year age but there are also forces/rays that are 18 billion years old, These can, however, only have a spin of 1.

 

The figure of 8 times comes from the relation between the volume of a 9 billion light year radius universe and that of an 18 billion light year radius universe which is 1/8.

 

I then require for the split to be 3.125% atomic matter, 21.875% dark matter and 75% dark energy. Although dark energy does not form part of the simple/two clock model it is part of my proposition and orthodox theories. Using this as a starting point the easiest place to start is to consider is why the figure for dark energy was 73% not 75% in WMAP. The reason for this was that WMAP worked on density and overstated the size, and therefore the total atomic mass (mass based on atoms), of the universe. The figure used for the radius of the universe was 13.5 billion light years versus the true figure of 9 billion years meaning an overstatement by 3.375 of the amount of matter that could be assumed at the stated density. The figure of 3.375 comes from the relation between the volume of a 9 and 13.5 light year radius universe. If the figure for atoms from WMAP (4.56%) is divided by this figure (3.375) the new total is 1.35% of the total of the universe.

 

This figure of 4.56% is low – compared with the expected figure for my proposition which would be 3.125 (expected portion) x 3.375 (overstatement) = 10.47(%). This means that some atomic matter has been included in the total for dark matter. It is essential to remove that portion and divide it by 3.375. This is 5.91 and thus this portion is 1.75 after the division by 3.375. In order to work out the correct figure for dark matter we need to remove this from the dark matter and put it with atomic matter. This brings the total for dark matter down from 22.8 to (22.8 – 1.75) or 21.05. This is slightly less that the 21.875 figure expected but within the 1.3% margin for error allowed for by WMAP. This leaves dark energy at 75.85 % against the expected 75%. This is again within the (1.5%) margin of error allowed by WMAP.

 

This leaves the question of why the figure for atoms was less than 3.125 (ie why was it 1.35% not 3.125 as expected) in the original calculation. The reason for this is that the true size of the universe in the orthodox model is 18 billion light years. It was shrunk as part of the age crisis. The original figure was actually correct in terms of spin 1 particles. This shrinkage was not necessary in my view and creates an error which must be removed.

 

The ratio of the volume beween the 13.5 billion light year radius universe and the 18 billion light year radius universe is 18 cubed to 13.5 cubed or 5832 to 2460. This is 2.37:1. We need to remove the error created by this unnecessary shrinking of the universe. To do this we multiply the 1.35 figure by this ratio and we get to 3.19 which is close to 3.125 and within a reasonable margin for error.

 

There are therefore two separate dark matter effects. The total ratio for dark matter is 1:8 (1 to 8) and the orthodox model says that the size of the universe is 13.5 billion light years in radius. There is a dark matter effect related to the fact that the universe is only 9 billion light years radius compared with the proposed 13.5 billion light year radius and a second which is related to the fact that the orthodox model should be working on a basis of 18 billion light years if it is to use radioactivity as its base. The first of these produces a figure of 3.35 as an overstatement and the second the figure of 2.37. This is why the WMAP probe came to the figure of 4.54% as the matter content for the universe. The figure of 4.54 is (within 0.1% of) 100 / 32 (ie the proportion my proposition expects for matter) divided by the ratio of the volumes of new (post age crisis) and original pre age crisis orthodox universe multiplied by the difference between the current orthodox and original astronomical view of the universe.

 

For these reasons the WMAP data does back up the one eighth rule.

 

I also wanted to answer a separate point

 

"The press release is about 19 exoplanets that have been confirmed from Kepler’s observations. The number of exoplanets confirmed from other sources numbers in the hundreds. So “all normal exoplanets” is a little bigger set than you seem to think."

 

Although there are many exoplanets the only ones that are relevant to the discussion are the ones for which we have densities. These are the exoplanets observed through the transit method. In particular those with orbits of more than 14 days are of particular interest as those very close to their stars may be dissimilar to those in our solar system.

 

There have been 12 exoplanets discovered which have orbits of more than 14 days (and less than 365 days) and for which we know the density. The heart of the issue is whether these are (large) rocky planets or gas giants.

 

Two of these planets have highly eccentric orbits which bring them close to their stars. The ten that have regular orbits have densities around one eighth of the rocky planets (venus and mercury) that orbit the sun.

 

Exoplanet density oribital period

Kepler-18d 0.27 14.85888

Kepler-9b 0.536 19.243158

HD 17156 b 3.065 21.214398 eccentric orbit

Kepler-11d 0.882 22.687189

Kepler-11e 0.531 31.995899

Kepler-9c 0.393 38.90861

Kepler-11f 0.754 46.688756

COROT-9b 0.945 95.273774

HD 80606 b 4.741 111.436366 eccentric orbit

Kepler-11g 0.725 118.377738

Kepler-35b 0.41 131.458

Kepler-16b 0.964 228.776

 

The density of mercury is 5.427 and venus is 5.204. If we divide these by eight we get 0.68 for mercury and venus is 0.65. These match well with the results in the table

 

For these reasons I don't believe that the other exoplanets (although many hundreds in number) will add significantly to the discussion.

 

Ed Joyce

[the asinine cretin]

Sorry to interrupt, but I've got to give a shout out to the Hunt for Exomoons with Kepler project.

[Arch2008]

Ummm…no.

 

The observable universe is neither 9 billion light years nor 18 billion light years in radius. The correct figure is over 90 billion light years. So, still no “one eighth rule”. The conjecture about particles having different ages due to their spin number is quite frankly ludicrous. The hadrons and leptons were made over 13 billion years ago and that is what they have been ever since. You might try some really basic sites about cosmology and quantum theory.

[Spyman]

The observable universe is neither 9 billion light years nor 18 billion light years in radius. The correct figure is over 90 billion light years.

I think you are mixing the diameter with radius:

 

The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

[Arch2008]

Exactly, thanks.

[space noob]

TrES-4 may interest you, it's the largest planet known and it's as dense as cork, according to Physics laws then it shouldn't exist, although it's the biggest known planet, it is only nearly twice the size of Jupiter, it's actually quite near to us which makes it possible that there are much bigger planets in the galaxy never mind the universe

Edited May 8, 2012 by space noob

[imatfaal]

Space-noob. The planet is TrES-4b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrES-4b

[Airbrush]

Dark Energy makes up 72% of the universe, while Dark Matter makes up 23% and the more familiar matter is 4.6%. So DM is 83% of all matter and the DM to matter ratio is 5/6, not 7/8.

 

Arch is right. "Dark matter is estimated to constitute 83% of the matter in the universe...". This means 17% of all forms of matter is regular matter, or 4.88 times as much dark matter as regular matter. Roughly 5 times as much dark matter as regular matter, and the ratio is 5/6 of all matter is dark.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

The last news I heard about Kepler was about 6 months ago, I think, and no mention of all exoplanets having such low density. Kepler sees the most massive planets that orbit very close to their star first. As time goes by they will detect smaller planets in farther out orbits.

[Ed Joyce]

I would like to answer this post from Arch2008. Arch2008's post states, in essence, that the universe has an observed radius of 46.6 light years. The post is sightly confused but his core point is important and the confusion over the numbers is corrected..

 

Arch2008 states

 

"The observable universe is neither 9 billion light years nor 18 billion light years in radius. The correct figure is over 90 billion light years. So, still no “one eighth rule”. The conjecture about particles having different ages due to their spin number is quite frankly ludicrous. The hadrons and leptons were made over 13 billion years ago and that is what they have been ever since."

 

What Arch2008 is saying is that although the universe is 13.75 billion years old the observable radius is 46.6 billion light years. This is seen as in conflict with my proposition that the proportions of dark matter to real matter are 7 to 1.

 

As I have stated previously there are two universes overlaid. One consists of spin 1/2 particles (electrons) the other of spin 1 (photons). The 'observable universe' is simply a reflection of the second of these.

 

The figure of 46.6 billion is three cubed divided by two cubed times the age of the universe, 13.75 billion years

 

This still leaves the question of why this does not reflect the numbers 7 to 1. The reason for this is that the difference (13.75 to 46.6) is caused by expansion of the universe caused by dark energy. The effect of this is not complete. Ultimately 2.36 times the number of galaxies we currently see will be visible as a result of dark energy

 

2.36 is four cubed divide by three cubed.

 

As a result the universe as visible when it reaches its maximum will reflect 2 cubed divided by four cubed or 8 / 64. This reflects the fact that of every 8 parts of matter 7 are hypothesised as dark matter

 

As a result I don't accept from Arch2008's comments that an obserable universe of 46 billion light years radius contradicts my proposition regarding dark matter.

 

The effect of this as previously stated will be that the first exomoons discovered will be hypothesised as gaseous. The reasons for this and other aspects of spin theory are on my website http colon double slash spintheory dot wordpress dot com. There is also a paper 'Spin and the density of exomoons'.

[Moontanman]

TrES-4 may interest you, it's the largest planet known and it's as dense as cork, according to Physics laws then it shouldn't exist, although it's the biggest known planet, it is only nearly twice the size of Jupiter, it's actually quite near to us which makes it possible that there are much bigger planets in the galaxy never mind the universe

 

 

that is not an accurate description...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrES-4b

 

TrES-4's orbital radius is 0.05091 AU, giving it a predicted surface temperature of about 1478 K. This by itself is not enough to explain the planet's low density, however. It is not currently known why TrES-4 is so large. The probable cause is the proximity to a parent star that is 3–4 times more luminous than the Sun and the internal heat within the planet.[1][2]

Edited August 8, 2012 by Moontanman

[Ed Joyce]

The first exomoon has been discovered. The density of the exomoon has been found to be as predicted 1/8th the expected density. The predicted density made was 0.2 - 0.4 g/cm3 as opposed to 3.34 g/cm3 which is the density of of our moon. As can be seen making this prediction earned a negative rating in this forum yet it turned out to be accurate.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Ed Joyce