Talk:HD 188753 Ab
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm wondering if HD 188753 Ab is a real planet and if it is why is it named that and not a normal name like the other planets...with letters? Is it all a hoax? If anyone has any answers or theorys please let me know. J.R.D
- Looking at Extrasolar planets, it looks like most planets around other stars are named in this way, with only a few being given common names.
- It is named with letters: "Ab"
[edit] Removed section
I removed the whole section on the planet's characteristics, as it had all been copied from [1]. The website says "Copyright © 1996-2007,John Whatmough. All Rights Reserved.". It's better to just remove such things instead of preventing access to this page with a copyvio notice.--Planetary 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Planet is now only "claimed"
A group has recently shown that this planet is not actually there. This planet also does not appear in the peer-reviewed Catalog of Nearby Exoplanets or the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia.
Enfolder 09:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- So does this mean the article should be deleted?--Planetary 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The planet is still listed in Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia under the list of "Unconfirmed, controversial or retracted planets". [2]. The planet's entry lists it as "unconfirmed". See also Maciej Konacki's response to the paper [3], it would be premature to claim this planet is disproven at this stage. Chaos syndrome 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The data from the latest paper IS sufficient to disprove the planet: it says "we failed to detect... HD 188753 Ab despite our clear ability to do so." To say that the planet is "unconfirmed" understates this point: the Geneva group didn't just fail to find the planet, the found that the planet isn't there. If this isn't enough to take the planet off of the list, what is? What if Konacki never issues a retraction and we never hear about it again? Enfolder
-
- This kind of thing happens quite a bit. Remember that 51 Pegasi b was supposedly disproven by a stellar pulsation hypothesis. Then again, the detection of HD 188753 Ab was less secure than 51 Peg b when it was "disproven". As research into this system seems to be still taking place, I do not think we should definitively go for one option or the other: there is still evidently debate in the academic community, so Wikipedia should not attempt to portray the issue as resolved when it currently is not. Following the precedent of Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, I'd go with "unconfirmed" at this stage. If the situation is not updated by the end of the year (by which time follow-up observations will have been made), then we go with "disproven". Still, the step of removing this planet from List of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets is definitely justified - this planet is in no way confirmed! Chaos syndrome 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
