AstroWright: Comments

Comment on "LathamFest Day 1 Concludes: M dwarfs"

Mon, 20 May 2013 18:40:07 -0500

I just gave a public talk including discussion of transits and mircolensing, and an astute audience member asked if both could happen at once - good to know it can and has with KOI 256. Thanks!

- Emily

Comment on "Should I Have Asked For Templeton Money?"

Fri, 10 May 2013 23:25:57 -0500

I appreciate this post and your thoughtful consideration of a thorny issue. Meers Oppenheim (BU Astronomy professor) once noted that many people think scientists are arrogant, but in fact science is a humble endeavor because we always hold our theories subject to the available evidence. I think that retaining this humility and flexibility outside our discipline will carry us much further than lecturing from a position of assumed purity.

- Nicholas McConnell

Comment on "Is That a White or Brown Trendy Degenerate Dwarf?"

Wed, 08 May 2013 13:58:56 -0500

Dave — good point! I meant from the precise RV planet surveys. FIxed.

- Jason T Wright

Comment on "Is That a White or Brown Trendy Degenerate Dwarf?"

Wed, 08 May 2013 13:45:36 -0500

Back in the day when we were first looking for field "T dwarfs" with 2MASS, I remember we picked up a white dwarf, for exactly the reasons you discuss. (In fact, looking back at the paper, it was LHS 529.)

- John Gizis

Comment on "Is That a White or Brown Trendy Degenerate Dwarf?"

Wed, 08 May 2013 13:42:07 -0500

Very cool!
For compact objects from planet searches — there's KOI 74 and 81 (and others) from the Kepler program.

- Dave Spiegel

Comment on "University Park, State College Station, etc."

Mon, 06 May 2013 23:46:48 -0500

There are many Penn Stations in the North-East US, the famous one is the one in New York. I think they used to be owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and not by their competitors. There are Penn Stations in DC, Baltimore, New London, CT and several others towns. :)

- Kamen

Comment on "What the IAU should have written"

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:31:02 -0500

I like your version! I suspect it is a better statement of what the IAU actually meant.

- Steve Bryson

Comment on "Some Points Of Clarification"

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:39:18 -0500

Indeed, the list of violations is long. Two more:
- ET-1 has no 'b'.
- The Exoplanet Archive and exoplanet.eu list "Ross 458(AB) c", but there is no "b" component (Ross 458 B IS the 'b' component?!)

- Jason T Wright

Comment on "Some Points Of Clarification"

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:45:56 -0500

Nice post, Jason.

Regarding point 3) — this isn't to disagree with anything you wrote, but just a comment: I think the TrES planets don't have 'b' appended. TrES-2 is the planet, not the star.

- Dave Spiegel

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:07:14 -0500

Daniel, I have (twice now) apologized for implying that Mr. Christensen acted without authorization by using the word "rogue", since that was not my intention.

As I explained (thrice now) my point is that neither the membership of Commission 53 nor the General Assembly has voted to resolve that exoplanet.eu contains "officially assigned catalogue designations" or that Uwingu's process "will not lead to an officially-recognised exoplanet name."

Or does the Organizing Committee of Commission 53 have the authority to make these decisions unilaterally? If they do I'm happy to stand corrected.

- Jason T Wright

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:05:09 -0500

Daniel, I have (twice now) apologized for implying that Mr. Christensen acted without authorization by using the word "rogue", since that was not my intention.

Or does the Organizing Committee of Commission 53 have the authority to make these decisions unilaterally? If they do I'm happy to stand corrected.

- Jason T Wright

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:18:45 -0500

The President of IAU Commision 53 Exoplanets has today explained to me that the "position stated in the press release was discussed with the Organizing Committee of Commission 53 in advance" and that "the text written by IAU has been released after consultation and approval of the IAU General Secretary." Nothing "rogue" here whatsoever - surprise - while a more thorough statement from the full Commission 53 on the exoplanet naming issue can be expected later this year. As it said in the press release and elsewhere earlier already.

- Daniel Fischer

Comment on "First Light!"

Mon, 15 Apr 2013 02:14:43 -0500

Congratulations on getting the project started.
Are there been any plans to allow outsiders to collaborate
on a related project ?

- David

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:36:35 -0500

Hi, Steve. The IAU press release states:

"Upon discovery, exoplanets and other astronomical objects receive unambiguous and official catalogue designations. "

This is false. The IAU imparts no such names on discovered planets. Discoverers usually do, unofficially, and they regularly flout the (unofficial) IAU naming scheme, as in the cases of HD 10180 b and mu Ara d and ET-1 and any number of press-release names.

Actually, I would be fine with Commission 53 weighing in on issues like HD 10180 b and mu Ara d; it would prevent the various exoplanet lists from having to coordinate their naming schemes or, worse (and the case now) disagreeing on them. I would welcome the IAU to play that official role, because I do not expect consensus to be reached in the literature.

As for agreeing on what planets are real and which are not, I agree that these things will remain subjective and not in need of any "official" stamp of approval. If the IAU started making those calls I would disapprove but it would not really change anything (exoplanets.org would just add an "IAU seal of approval" flag).

But to my knowledge there has never been a General Assembly vote to give any exoplanet identifier scheme (whether name or catalog designation) the imprimatur of the IAU.

I agree that the press release probably meant to simply point to exoplanet.eu as an example of the unofficial designation scheme, but that's not what the text of the press release said and that should be clarified.

- Jason T Wright

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:46:01 -0500

Jason, I appreciate your response, but I _do_ care that Uwingu is pursuing popular names for exoplanets. They have a lot of bigwheels on board and make it look important if not technically official. A disclaimer somewhere on their web site is not going to deter the impression that the names are more meaningful than names that I'll give out from Ben's Planet Name Agency, at only $2.99 - but they aren't.

If Uwingu keeps getting publicity traction, I am dead certain that the cumulative amount of time astronomers spend explaining to people that there isn't really a planet named "Ron Paul" (currently ranked #14) is going to outweigh the research time Uwingu manages to fund. In that sense, it's taking money out of the community's collective pocket.

- Benjamin Weiner

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:45:40 -0500

Hi Jason - your comment opens up an interesting can of worms. I would not want the IAU (or any other body) claiming the authority of maintaining an "approved" list of confirmed exoplanets. I'd assumed that exoplanets.eu and other archives simply make best efforts to reflect the consensus of the community. For example, the NexSci exoplanet archive uses the simple "if it's appeared in a peer-reviewed publication" criterion for planet confirmation.

From this perspective I interpret the IAU press release as pointing to exoplanet.eu as an example of good use of nomenclature, not as an "approved" list.

Similarly I'd expect the IAU to stay out of your mu Ara example until a consensus was reached.

It makes sense to have a central arbiter for names. Not so much for astrophysical results such as planet confirmations. Also not so much for astrophysical definitions - that has not gone well. How does that sound to you?

- Steve Bryson

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:33:03 -0500

Sorry about the clunky comments software; I'll be moving platforms soon.

Actually, the IAU does not even handle or track planet designations. mu Ara is a good example of a system where priority is disputed and the literature is confused. Which planet is d? Is exoplanet.eu the final word on this? HD 10180 has no 'b' component because the authors weren't sure if the signal was real or not. Is that consistent with the IAU convention?

The IAU stopped tracking exoplanet names because Jean Scneider was doing a better job than them, but they had never made his list official until this press release, as far as I know.

- Jason T Wright

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:08:06 -0500

Eek: that should have been "On your point 3 you're right: the IAU press release is not internally consistent with regard to ..." We can't edit comments?

- Steve Bryson

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:03:09 -0500

Hi Jason - on your points 1 and 2 I still disagree: the IAU press release only says there is an approved nomenclature or "catalog designations", not specific names. I can only speak with certainty about the Kepler confirmed exoplanet catalog nomenclature Kepler-Xx, which was IAU-approved before flight. I take the IAU press release at its word that the other catalog nomenclatures are similarly approved. These are exoplanet, not star, catalog designations.

On the other hand the KOI-XXXX.XX designation is not (so far as know) IAU-approved. But these are just candidates so maybe nobody cares.

On your point 3 you're right: the IAU press release is not internally inconsistent with regard to being willing to consider Uwingu names. I'd bet that the IAU will eventually say that the first statement should read "should not be expected to lead to an officially-recognised exoplanet name...", and that they mean the second statement that I quoted in my earlier comment. In other words the IAU is saying two inconsistent things, and I'm choosing to believe they meant the second one. You may choose differently.

On point 4: Right on! This is where I think the press release should have been much more clear that nothing is settled until commission 53 approves a policy.

- Steve Bryson

Comment on "No, the IAU does NOT officially name planets"

Sun, 14 Apr 2013 20:16:07 -0500

Hi, Steve. Thanks for your input.

1) I agree that the IAU should be our professional arbiter for planet names, and that this is a useful and proper role for it to play. I don't think I asserted, or even really implied, otherwise. The IAU can name the exoplanets. My issue is that the press releases says they have done this already, when in fact they have not.

2) Even if the catalog designations of stars have been approved, the use of those designations to identify exoplanets has not.

3) The IAU press release certainly does assert that the IAU has foreclosed using the names: it asserts that the Uwingu certificates "will not lead to an officially-recognised exoplanet name, despite the price paid or the number of votes accrued". This matter is for the Committee to decide, and it has not done so.

4) I have updated my "rogue press agent" comment to absolve Mr. Christensen and clarify my meaning better. I meant no offense nor did I mean to imply that he acted without authority.

- Jason T Wright