This artist’s impression depicts the exomoon candidate Kepler-1625b-i, the planet it is orbiting and the star in the center of the star system.

Credit: Wikipedia

Last Autumn’s claimed detection of the world’s first-known extrasolar moon — a strange Neptune-mass object circling a Jupiter-mass planet in a 287-day orbit around its parent star — now seems doubtful at best. In fact, new independent analyses of observations made by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope altogether dispute the claimed 2018 detection, say the authors of a new paper.

Columbia University astronomers Alex Teachey and David Kipping first made the case for the detection of an exomoon around the planet Kepler-1625b in a paper appearing in the journal Science Advances. But in a new paper just submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Letters (ApJ Letters), Harvard University astronomer Laura Kreidberg now finds no evidence for such a moon.

We found no evidence of a lunar transit in the Hubble observations of Kepler-1625, a sun-like star which lies some 8000 light years away in the constellation of Cygnus, Kreidberg, the paper’s lead author, told me.

“The lunar transit signature was the most important piece of evidence in favor of the moon, so the fact that we didn’t see it really calls into question the moon’s existence,” said Kreidberg.

The key to detecting such a moon relies on the ability to measure a planetary body’s transit across the face of its parent star. If the star’s light is observed to dim with regularity over a predictable time period, then astronomers can make the case that this is indicative of a planetary body in orbit around a parent star. But detecting an exomoon is even more complicated. That’s because astronomers must not only look for stellar dimming caused by a planet, but also by the presence of a natural lunar satellite in orbit around the planet.

As for the putative moon around Kepler-1625b, this is not the first time this exomoon result has been called into question. So, what’s different about this new paper from Kreidberg and colleagues?

“I’ve been analyzing data from Hubble for over seven years now, so my data analysis pipeline has been thoroughly vetted on many other observations,” said Kreidberg. She and colleagues reached their conclusions by reanalyzing the previously published Hubble observations.

Kreidberg and colleagues write that they present a new analysis of the Hubble observations, using an independent data reduction. “We find that the transit light curve is well fit with a planet-only model, the authors wrote. They conclude that the lunar transit signal was likely an artifact of the data reduction.

Hubble wasn’t designed with this science case in mind, and so lots of post-processing is required to tease out the minute signals expected from small planets and moons, says Kreidberg.

However, Columbia University astronomer Alex Teachey still stands by him and Kipping’s original analysis. This new paper finds no faults with our analysis, nor are they able to point to anything we did along the way that could have introduced this signal, says Teachey.

“I would say it’s just as likely that a weak signal (like the moon transit) could be erroneously removed as it could be erroneously introduced,” said Teachey.

What’s the lesson?

“I hope the lesson learned from Kepler-1625 is that we shouldn’t rush to conclusions,” said Kreidberg. “And even in the excitement of scientific discovery, we should pause to get multiple independent analyses and make sure the detection holds up.”

Kreidberg notes that NASA’s TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) will focus on the nearest and brightest stars and thus candidate exomoons in these systems will be easier to confirm than Kepler-1625. Even so, Teachey still hasn’t given up on the idea that Kepler 1625b is orbited by an unusually large exomoon.

“At this point, the moon signal has been both validated and called into question by other teams, said Teachey. “To me, that suggests that [its] existence is still very much an open question.”

Kreidberg disagrees.

I tried to repeat all the steps in the original analysis and found I could not reproduce the result, she says. Instead, Kreidberg found a cleaner data fit with a simpler no moon model.

“I think its existence is too tenuous to merit any further allocation of resources,” said Kreidberg.

” readability=”95.582330229389″>
< div _ ngcontent-c14 =" " innerhtml ="

This artist’s impression illustrates the exomoon prospect Kepler-1625 b-i, the world it is orbiting and the star in the center of the galaxy.

Credit: Wikipedia

Last Fall’s declared detection of the world’s first-known extrasolar moon– a weird Neptune-mass item circling around a Jupiter-mass world in a 287- day orbit around its moms and dad star– now appears skeptical at finest. In reality, brand-new independent analyses of observations made by NASA’s Hubble Area Telescope entirely challenge the declared 2018 detection, state the authors of a brand-new paper.

Columbia University astronomers Alex Teachey and David Kipping initially made the case for the detection of an exomoon around the world Kepler-1625 b in a paper appearing in the journal Science Advances However in a brand-new paper simply sent to The Astrophysical Journal Letters(ApJ Letters), Harvard University astronomer Laura Kreidberg now discovers no proof for such a moon.

We discovered no proof of a lunar transit in the Hubble observations of Kepler-1625, a sun-like star which lies some 8000 light years away in the constellation of Cygnus, Kreidberg, the paper’s lead author, informed me.

(********** )

” The lunar transit signature was the most essential piece of proof in favor of the moon, so the reality that we didn’t see it actually casts doubt on the moon’s presence,” stated Kreidberg.

The essential to discovering such a moon counts on the capability to determine a planetary body’s transit throughout the face of its moms and dad star. If the star’s light is observed to dim with consistency over a foreseeable period, then astronomers can make the case that this is a sign of a planetary body in orbit around a moms and dad star. However discovering an exomoon is much more complex. That’s due to the fact that astronomers need to not just try to find excellent dimming brought on by a world, however likewise by the existence of a natural lunar satellite in orbit around the world.

(**************** )(****** )

When it comes to the putative moon around Kepler-1625 b, this is not the very first time this exomoon outcome has actually been brought into question So, what’s various about this brand-new paper from Kreidberg and coworkers?

” I have actually been examining information from Hubble for over 7 years now, so my information analysis pipeline has actually been completely vetted on lots of other observations,” stated Kreidberg. She and coworkers reached their conclusions by reanalyzing the formerly released Hubble observations.

Kreidberg and coworkers compose that they provide a brand-new analysis of the Hubble observations, utilizing an independent information decrease. “We discover that the transit light curve is well fit with a planet-only design, the authors composed. They conclude that the lunar transit signal was likely an artifact of the information decrease.

Hubble wasn’t developed with this science case in mind, therefore great deals of post-processing is needed to tease out the minute signals anticipated from little worlds and moons, states Kreidberg.

Nevertheless, Columbia University astronomer Alex Teachey still waits him and Kipping’s initial analysis. This brand-new paper discovers no faults with our analysis, nor are they able to indicate anything we did along the method that might have presented this signal, states Teachey.

” I would state it’s simply as most likely that a weak signal (like the moon transit) might be mistakenly eliminated as it might be mistakenly presented,” stated Teachey.

What’s the lesson?

” I hope the lesson gained from Kepler-1625 is that we should not hurry to conclusions,” stated Kreidberg. “And even in the enjoyment of clinical discovery, we ought to stop briefly to get several independent analyses and ensure the detection holds up.”

Kreidberg notes that NASA’s TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Study Satellite) will concentrate on the nearby and brightest stars and hence prospect exomoons in these systems will be simpler to verify than Kepler-1625 Nevertheless, Teachey still hasn’t quit on the concept that Kepler 1625 b is orbited by an uncommonly big exomoon.

” At this moment, the moon signal has actually been both verified and brought into question by other groups, stated Teachey. “To me, that recommends that [its] presence is still quite an open concern.”

Kreidberg disagrees.

I attempted to duplicate all the actions in the initial analysis and discovered I might not replicate the outcome, she states. Rather, Kreidberg discovered a cleaner information fit with an easier no moon design.

” I believe its presence is too rare to warrant any more allowance of resources,” stated Kreidberg.

” readability =”95
582330229389″ >

.

This artist’s impression illustrates the exomoon prospect Kepler – 1625 b-i, the world it is orbiting and the star in the center of the galaxy.

Credit: Wikipedia

.

.

Last Fall’s declared detection of the world’s first-known extrasolar moon– a weird Neptune-mass item circling around a Jupiter-mass world in a 287 – day orbit around its moms and dad star– now appears skeptical at finest. In reality, brand-new independent analyses of observations made by NASA’s Hubble Area Telescope entirely challenge the declared 2018 detection, state the authors of a brand-new paper.

Columbia University astronomers Alex Teachey and David Kipping initially made the case for the detection of an exomoon around the world Kepler – 1625 b in a paper appearing in the journal Science Advances However in a brand-new paper simply sent to The Astrophysical Journal Letters (ApJ Letters), Harvard University astronomer Laura Kreidberg now discovers no proof for such a moon.

We discovered no proof of a lunar transit in the Hubble observations of Kepler – 1625, a sun-like star which lies some 8000 light years away in the constellation of Cygnus, Kreidberg, the paper’s lead author, informed me.

“The lunar transit signature was the most essential piece of proof in favor of the moon, so the reality that we didn’t see it actually casts doubt on the moon’s presence,” stated Kreidberg.

The essential to discovering such a moon counts on the capability to determine a planetary body’s transit throughout the face of its moms and dad star. If the star’s light is observed to dim with consistency over a foreseeable period, then astronomers can make the case that this is a sign of a planetary body in orbit around a moms and dad star. However discovering an exomoon is much more complex. That’s due to the fact that astronomers need to not just try to find excellent dimming brought on by a world, however likewise by the existence of a natural lunar satellite in orbit around the world.

When it comes to the putative moon around Kepler – 1625 b, this is not the very first time this exomoon outcome has actually been brought into question So, what’s various about this brand-new paper from Kreidberg and coworkers?

“I have actually been examining information from Hubble for over 7 years now, so my information analysis pipeline has actually been completely vetted on lots of other observations,” stated Kreidberg. She and coworkers reached their conclusions by reanalyzing the formerly released Hubble observations.

Kreidberg and coworkers compose that they provide a brand-new analysis of the Hubble observations, utilizing an independent information decrease. “We discover that the transit light curve is well fit with a planet-only design, the authors composed. They conclude that the lunar transit signal was likely an artifact of the information decrease.

Hubble wasn’t developed with this science case in mind, therefore great deals of post-processing is needed to tease out the minute signals anticipated from little worlds and moons, states Kreidberg.

Nevertheless, Columbia University astronomer Alex Teachey still waits him and Kipping’s initial analysis. This brand-new paper discovers no faults with our analysis, nor are they able to indicate anything we did along the method that might have presented this signal, states Teachey.

“I would state it’s simply as most likely that a weak signal (like the moon transit) might be mistakenly eliminated as it might be mistakenly presented,” stated Teachey.

What’s the lesson?

“I hope the lesson gained from Kepler – 1625 is that we should not hurry to conclusions,” stated Kreidberg. “And even in the enjoyment of clinical discovery, we ought to stop briefly to get several independent analyses and ensure the detection holds up.”

Kreidberg keeps in mind that NASA’s TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Study Satellite) will concentrate on the nearby and brightest stars and hence prospect exomoons in these systems will be simpler to verify than Kepler -1625 Nevertheless, Teachey still hasn’t quit on the concept that Kepler 1625 b is orbited by an uncommonly big exomoon.

“At this moment, the moon signal has actually been both verified and brought into question by other groups, stated Teachey. “To me, that recommends that [its] presence is still quite an open concern.”

Kreidberg disagrees.

I attempted to duplicate all the actions in the initial analysis and discovered I might not replicate the outcome, she states. Rather, Kreidberg discovered a cleaner information fit with an easier no moon design.

“I believe its presence is too rare to warrant any more allowance of resources,” stated Kreidberg.

.