What is the relationship between brown dwarfs and giant gas planets?

[|Glitch|]

It has been my understanding that a brown dwarf was defined by when an object has achieved sufficient mass to begin deuterium fusion. Much like a star is defined by when it has achieved sufficient mass to begin hydrogen fusion. The minimum mass to begin fusing deuterium is estimated to be approximately 13 Jupiter masses. However, after reading a paper recently published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, it made references to "giant planets" (not brown dwarfs) with as much as 20 Jupiter masses. Therefore, I am left wondering how a giant gas planet can be greater than 13 Jupiter masses and not be of sufficient mass to begin the deuterium fusion process.

Or is it that once a brown dwarf has fused all of its deuterium it becomes a giant gas planet?

Source:
Observational evidence for two distinct giant planet populations - Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 603, July 2017 (free preprint)

 

[rootone]

Just guessing, but expect the density of deuterium present would make a difference.
A planet 12x Jupiter might initiate fusion if deuterium is present as a large percentage of it's total mass,
whereas as 20x Jupiter planet might not if it is lacking an abundance of deuterium.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

A planet 12x Jupiter might initiate fusion if deuterium is present as a large percentage of it's total mass,

Hi rootone:

I am confused about deuterium being a major component of any star, except perhaps very old 1st generation stars, but I don't think brown dwarfs are in that category.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium#Abundance
23 atoms of deuterium per million hydrogen atoms in undisturbed gas clouds, which is only 15% below the WMAP estimated primordial ratio of about 27 atoms per million from the Big Bang.​

Can you provide a link that explains how this could happen given the rarity of deuterium?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[rootone]

Was just following from the OP question.
I agree it's unlikely that a gas giant planet a few times the mass of Jupiter could form which is very deuterium rich and therefore would easily go to fusion.
Not impossible though.

 

[snorkack]

A likely reply is that deuterium fusion is just one proposed, but not universally accepted, definition of brown dwarf. Therefore some astronomers can, and do, term more massive objects as "planets".

 

[|Glitch|]

Was just following from the OP question.
I agree it's unlikely that a gas giant planet a few times the mass of Jupiter could form which is very deuterium rich and therefore would easily go to fusion.
Not impossible though.

In essence then, it is only a brown dwarf so long as it is fusing deuterium and/or lithium. If the brown dwarf runs out of this material (which it will in just a few hundred million years), then it ceases to be a brown dwarf and becomes a giant gas planet instead.

 

[|Glitch|]

A likely reply is that deuterium fusion is just one proposed, but not universally accepted, definition of brown dwarf. Therefore some astronomers can, and do, term more massive objects as "planets".

What other criteria could there be for a brown dwarf if not deuterium and/or lithium fusion?

 

[stefan r]

Could the temperature stay below 10⁶ K? Give enough time for the planet to radiate the heat of formation. Then add more mass.

A binary planet could tidal lock and then cool off. Exchanged gas would be closer to the surface and more able to radiate heat. A lot of the impact energy would be preserved as rotational energy. Would still be toasty warm but I am not sure how to calculate the temperature.

 

[|Glitch|]

Could the temperature stay below 10⁶ K? Give enough time for the planet to radiate the heat of formation. Then add more mass.

A binary planet could tidal lock and then cool off. Exchanged gas would be closer to the surface and more able to radiate heat. A lot of the impact energy would be preserved as rotational energy. Would still be toasty warm but I am not sure how to calculate the temperature.

If the temperature was below 10⁶ K wouldn't it also mean that the object is smaller than 13 Jupiter masses? I suppose that is the crux of my question: How can an object with more than 13 Jupiter masses maintain an internal temperature that is less than 10⁶ K?

If, as you suggest in your example, two objects were to eventually collide and their combined mass becomes greater than 13 Jupiter masses, then it should be of sufficient mass to begin deuterium fusion, and a brown dwarf would be born. At least temporarily. After a few million years all the deuterium will be consumed and the now giant gas planet will slowly continue to cool.

It really isn't that different from a main sequence star, which becomes something else when it ceases to fuse hydrogen. Depending on the mass of the star, it will be either a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole upon its "death." So it makes sense that a brown dwarf can only be a brown dwarf so long as it has an internal core temperature between approximately 10⁶ K and 10⁷ K.

This would also mean than brown dwarfs greater than 20 Jupiter masses would eventually become giant gas planets after their internal core temperature drops below 10⁶ K. So there could be giant gas planets with ~69 Jupiter masses floating around out there radiating very little heat. What a scary thought.

 

[stefan r]

If, as you suggest in your example, two objects were to eventually collide and their combined mass becomes greater than 13 Jupiter masses, then it should be of sufficient mass to begin deuterium fusion, and a brown dwarf would be born. At least temporarily. After a few million years all the deuterium will be consumed and the now giant gas planet will slowly continue to cool.

I believe the definitions are based on spectra. So if your "thing" does not have deuterium lines then it is a brown dwarf. The low mass brown dwarfs should have lithium.

If the temperature was below 10⁶ K wouldn't it also mean that the object is smaller than 13 Jupiter masses? I suppose that is the crux of my question: How can an object with more than 13 Jupiter masses maintain an internal temperature that is less than 10⁶ K?...

...would eventually become giant gas planets after their internal core temperature drops below 10⁶ K. So there could be giant gas planets with ~69 Jupiter masses floating around out there radiating very little heat. What a scary thought.

The temperature should drop. The surface gases would move toward equilibrium with background radiation. Well below 100K in our neighborhood. Wikipedia puts Jupiter's core temperature at about 36000°K.

I am not sure but I believe brown dwarfs would cool off somewhat slower but a similar time scale. Metals conduct heat faster. The atmosphere in a brown dwarf will be thinner than Jupiter's.

There could be a lot of them.

 

[Ken G]

One possibility is that the planet has simply not contracted enough yet to fuse deuterium. For example, Saturn is still contracting now. Saturn will never fuse deuterium, but it shows that a planet might take awhile to finish contracting, so we might call something a giant planet even if it is destined in the future to be a brown dwarf. The same is actually true of stars-- for some silly reason, a star is not regarded as a star if fusion is in its future or its past, it must be in its present. I would never have defined one that way, but it's what you usually find (though not in the Wiki definition). In fact, the definitions of stars and brown dwarfs is even more of a mess than the definitions of planets, it is fortunate that we can study these things without really being capable of defining them clearly.

 

[|Glitch|]

One possibility is that the planet has simply not contracted enough yet to fuse deuterium. For example, Saturn is still contracting now. Saturn will never fuse deuterium, but it shows that a planet might take awhile to finish contracting, so we might call something a giant planet even if it is destined in the future to be a brown dwarf. The same is actually true of stars-- for some silly reason, a star is not regarded as a star if fusion is in its future or its past, it must be in its present. I would never have defined one that way, but it's what you usually find (though not in the Wiki definition). In fact, the definitions of stars and brown dwarfs is even more of a mess than the definitions of planets, it is fortunate that we can study these things without really being capable of defining them clearly.

Except that it is the mass and density of an object that determines its internal core temperature. Neither Jupiter nor Saturn could ever fuse deuterium because they lack the mass and density to achieve an internal core temperature of between 10⁶ °K and 10⁷ °K. While giant gas planets may indeed continue contracting for billions of years after they form, their mass does not change significantly.

I agree with you, upon further reflection. Brown dwarfs are only brown dwarfs while they are fusing deuterium and/or lithium. If the object does not have an internal core temperature between 10⁶ °K and 10⁷ °K, then it cannot be a brown dwarf. This internal core temperature could happen upon formation, or afterwards if something were to alter the mass or change the object's density - such as a collision, for example. Once there is sufficient mass and density to create temperatures in the 10⁶ °K and 10⁷ °K range, then a brown dwarf is born. After the brown dwarf has fused all of its deuterium and lithium in a few million years and begins to cool off, then it ceases to be a brown dwarf once the internal core temperature drops below 10⁶ °K.

Currently we are making discoveries faster than we can accurately define them. I do agree that we need better definitions, but I also know that those definitions will come eventually. I just hope those definitions are based upon science rather than politics. The Pluto debacle is an example of politics winning out over science. Science doesn't give a damn how many planets are in a solar system, only the politically correct are concerned about such matters.

 

[Ken G]

I agree with you, upon further reflection. Brown dwarfs are only brown dwarfs while they are fusing deuterium and/or lithium. If the object does not have an internal core temperature between 10⁶ °K and 10⁷ °K, then it cannot be a brown dwarf. This internal core temperature could happen upon formation, or afterwards if something were to alter the mass or change the object's density - such as a collision, for example.

But don't forget about the most common cause of a rising core temperature-- gravitational contraction.

Once there is sufficient mass and density to create temperatures in the 10⁶ °K and 10⁷ °K range, then a brown dwarf is born. After the brown dwarf has fused all of its deuterium and lithium in a few million years and begins to cool off, then it ceases to be a brown dwarf once the internal core temperature drops below 10⁶ °K.

Yes, you're right, so you could not only have a gas giant turn into a brown dwarf as it contracts, you could also have a brown dwarf turn back into a gas giant after it runs out of deuterium. If the brown dwarf definition works like the star definition, where many sources require it to have current fusion, not just fusion in the past or future.

Currently we are making discoveries faster than we can accurately define them. I do agree that we need better definitions, but I also know that those definitions will come eventually.

Believe it or not, I think the problem goes deeper-- there are many things people study that really escape a clear definition, and as such, there may never be one. And that turns out not to be that important-- what bonds stellar astronomers, and planetary astronomers, is their common interests, much more than any particular definition of stars or planets. That's why stellar astronomers will say "white dwarf star" without batting an eye, because when they do that, they simply mean "the aspects of white dwarfs that unify them with earlier phases of life when they would have been more formally considered a star", more so than "this is an object that is officially a star by some clear definition." Similarly, the people who specialize in understanding Pluto are always going to call themselves "planetary astronomers" who study "planets", and will even be heard to talk about the "planet Pluto," notwithstanding the formal definition. Really the formal definition is for the popular media, which needs answers to questions like "how many planets are in our solar system"-- planetary astronomers have little need to answer a question like that, it's not what interests them.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

I agree with you, upon further reflection. Brown dwarfs are only brown dwarfs while they are fusing deuterium and/or lithium.

Hi Glitch:

I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to find sources that talk about brown dwarfs fusing deuterium (D) and/or lithium (Li). Since the abundances of D (27 parts per million)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/deuabund.html​

and Li ( 6 parts per billion)

http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/UniverseAbundance.html​

seem so extremely small, it seems very unlikely that any brown dwarf would have enough D and/or Li to make fusion of them happen.

From (underlining is mine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf#Spectral_class_L
They are, however, thought to fuse deuterium (²H) and to fuse lithium (⁷Li) if their mass is above a debated^[4] threshold of 13 MJ and 65 MJ, respectively.^[2]​

I looked at the references [2] and [4]

[2] https://www.universetoday.com/19237/dense-exoplanet-creates-classification-calamity/
[4] http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/astro160/papers/brown_dwarfs_failed_stars.pdf​

and found no discussion of fusing D and Li.

I would much appreciate it if anyone can post a link to a reference that discusses why it is "thought" that a brown dwarf might fuse D and/or Li.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[|Glitch|]

Hi Glitch:

I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to find sources that talk about brown dwarfs fusing deuterium (D) and/or lithium (Li). Since the abundances of D (27 parts per million)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/deuabund.html​

and Li ( 6 parts per billion)

http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/UniverseAbundance.html​

seem so extremely small, it seems very unlikely that any brown dwarf would have enough D and/or Li to make fusion of them happen.

From (underlining is mine)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf#Spectral_class_L
They are, however, thought to fuse deuterium (²H) and to fuse lithium (⁷Li) if their mass is above a debated^[4] threshold of 13 MJ and 65 MJ, respectively.^[2]​

I looked at the references [2] and [4]

[2] https://www.universetoday.com/19237/dense-exoplanet-creates-classification-calamity/
[4] http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/astro160/papers/brown_dwarfs_failed_stars.pdf​

and found no discussion of fusing D and Li.

I would much appreciate it if anyone can post a link to a reference that discusses why it is "thought" that a brown dwarf might fuse D and/or Li.

Regards,
Buzz

This was from a few years ago:

The Deuterium-Burning Mass Limit for Brown Dwarfs and Giant Planets - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 727, Number 1, January 2011 (free issue)

They put the minimum mass for deuterium fusion at ~(13.0 ± 0.8) Jupiter masses if you use the same metallicity as our sun. They suggest that an object with as little as ~11.0 Jupiter masses could also begin deuterium fusion if it had three times the metallicity of Sol.

Furthermore, there was a recent study that suggests brown dwarfs cannot be any larger than 6.7% the mass of the sun, or 70.2 Jupiter masses.

Individual Dynamical Masses of Ultracool Dwarfs - arXiv free preprint, March 2017

 

[|Glitch|]

Believe it or not, I think the problem goes deeper-- there are many things people study that really escape a clear definition, and as such, there may never be one. And that turns out not to be that important-- what bonds stellar astronomers, and planetary astronomers, is their common interests, much more than any particular definition of stars or planets. That's why stellar astronomers will say "white dwarf star" without batting an eye, because when they do that, they simply mean "the aspects of white dwarfs that unify them with earlier phases of life when they would have been more formally considered a star", more so than "this is an object that is officially a star by some clear definition." Similarly, the people who specialize in understanding Pluto are always going to call themselves "planetary astronomers" who study "planets", and will even be heard to talk about the "planet Pluto," notwithstanding the formal definition. Really the formal definition is for the popular media, which needs answers to questions like "how many planets are in our solar system"-- planetary astronomers have little need to answer a question like that, it's not what interests them.

Believe it or not, I came across this working group definition from the IAU:

A commonly used way to classify objects that are ~10–15 times the mass of Jupiter is by whether they fuse deuterium (D) in their deep interiors. This criterion was adopted in 2002 by the Working Group on Extrasolar Planets of the International Astronomical Union (Boss et al. 2007).

1. Objects with true masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium (currently calculated to be 13 Jupiter masses for objects of solar metallicity) that orbit stars or stellar remnants are "planets" (no matter how they formed). The minimum mass/size required for an extrasolar object to be considered a planet should be the same as that used in our solar system.
2. Substellar objects with true masses above the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are "brown dwarfs," no matter how they formed nor where they are located.
3. Free-floating objects in young star clusters with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets," but are "sub-brown dwarfs" (or whatever name is most appropriate).

Source: The Deuterium-Burning Mass Limit for Brown Dwarfs and Giant Planets - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 727, Number 1, January 2011 (free issue)

With "sub-brown dwarfs" being thrown into the mix they are really blurring the lines between a planet and a brown dwarf.

 

[snorkack]

Believe it or not, I came across this working group definition from the IAU:

Source: The Deuterium-Burning Mass Limit for Brown Dwarfs and Giant Planets - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 727, Number 1, January 2011 (free issue)

Free-floating objects with masses below the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion of deuterium are not "planets," but are "sub-brown dwarfs"

Does it mean that a comet that has been accelerated past escape speed of Solar System is a sub-brown dwarf?

 

[Buzz Bloom]

The Deuterium-Burning Mass Limit for Brown Dwarfs and Giant Planets - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 727, Number 1, January 2011 (free issue)
They put the minimum mass for deuterium fusion at ~(13.0 ± 0.8) Jupiter masses if you use the same metallicity as our sun. They suggest that an object with as little as ~11.0 Jupiter masses could also begin deuterium fusion if it had three times the metallicity of Sol.

Hi Glitch:

Thank you very much for the link. The article did discuss the assumptions about deuterium abundance that were the same as the ones I quoted. However, I still feel uncomfortable about the article's conclusions since there was no discussion about how much energy the D fusion would produce and how much the temperature of the brown dwarf would increase from this produced energy. I guess I should accept this as a "homework problem". If I am able to calculate an answer I will post it.

BTW: The article for second link you posted did not include the word "deuterium".

Regards,
Buzz

 

[Ken G]

Yes, the introduction of "sub-brown dwarfs" is exactly the problem you run into if you seek precise definitions. It's tricky, because one does like to have precise terms when possible, but then, what really matters is that people who are interested in similar phenomena have similar objects to talk about. Those people don't care about arbitrary definitions, they only care about the similar phenomena! So if you care about the interior of Jupiter, for example, you really don't care if it is in a solar system and can be called a "giant planet", or if it is free-floating and should be called a "sub-brown dwarf," that distinction is just of no value to you.

 

[|Glitch|]

Hi Glitch:

Thank you very much for the link. The article did discuss the assumptions about deuterium abundance that were the same as the ones I quoted. However, I still feel uncomfortable about the article's conclusions since there was no discussion about how much energy the D fusion would produce and how much the temperature of the brown dwarf would increase from this produced energy. I guess I should accept this as a "homework problem". If I am able to calculate an answer I will post it.

BTW: The article for second link you posted did not include the word "deuterium".

Regards,
Buzz

The second link I posted dealt with stars up to type M7 and T5 brown dwarfs and discusses lithium depletion. Its purpose was to determine the minimum mass for when hydrogen fusion begins. So it was only interested in objects with 65 Jupiter masses or greater.

 

[rootone]

There are other terms like 'protostar' which describe a nebula very close to forming a star and possibly planets too.

 

[stefan r]

...Once there is sufficient mass and density to create temperatures in the 10⁶ °K and 10⁷ °K range...

Can we get a fact check on this. I believe that degrees Kelvin and density are fully independent. For example the warm-hot intergalactic medium is 10⁷K and less than 1 particle per cm³. Under black dwarf Wikipedia has this sentence:

Barrow and Tipler estimate that it would take 10¹⁵ years for a white dwarf to cool to 5 K

That is very cold, very dense and stellar mass.

If the deuterium is gone then it was able to fuse. I do not believe the object loses it's brown dwarf status. We do not travel to stars yet. Everything we say we know about stars comes from measurements of light arriving here. The object either has a deuterium line or it lacks deuterium lines.

 

[|Glitch|]

There are other terms like 'protostar' which describe a nebula very close to forming a star and possibly planets too.

True. Depending upon the mass involved, "protostars" blur the line between T type brown dwarfs and small utracool stars, just as "sub-brown dwarfs" blurs the line between planets and Y type brown dwarfs at the other end of the spectrum. There appears to be no clear cut definition. Although I'm not sure why a rogue planet would be considered a "sub-brown dwarf." Just because the planet no longer orbits a star shouldn't change the label of the object. It is still a planet, just a rogue one. On the other hand, I can understand why protostars blur the line between a T type brown dwarf and a small utracool star. Until they are fulling formed, we don't know which one it will be - a small utracool star or a very hot brown dwarf.

 

[|Glitch|]

Can we get a fact check on this. I believe that degrees Kelvin and density are fully independent. For example the warm-hot intergalactic medium is 10⁷K and less than 1 particle per cm³. Under black dwarf Wikipedia has this sentence: That is very cold, very dense and stellar mass.

If the deuterium is gone then it was able to fuse. I do not believe the object loses it's brown dwarf status. We do not travel to stars yet. Everything we say we know about stars comes from measurements of light arriving here. The object either has a deuterium line or it lacks deuterium lines.

There is another component that also determines the internal core temperature that I did not mention, and that is metallicity. The higher the metal content, the less mass is required to achieve an internal core temperature of 10⁶ °K. As I pointed out earlier, it has been suggested that if the object had the metallicity three times that of the sun, deuterium fusion could be achieved at 11 Jupiter masses. The ~(13 ± 0.8) Jupiter masses used as a rule of thumb for brown dwarfs assumes the same metallicity as our sun. A brown dwarf with a lower metallicity than our sun would need to be more massive than 13 Jupiter masses before deuterium fusion could begin.

When a star "dies" its label is changed. Depending upon the star's mass, it either becomes a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole when it "dies." Hence, when a brown dwarf has fused all of its deuterium and/or lithium it ceases to be a brown dwarf and becomes a giant gas planet. Stars are only stars while they fuse either hydrogen and/or helium. The same is true with brown dwarfs, they are only brown dwarfs while they fuse deuterium and/or lithium. When that process stops they become something else.

 

[Ken G]

Stars are only stars while they fuse either hydrogen and/or helium. The same is true with brown dwarfs, they are only brown dwarfs while they fuse deuterium and/or lithium. When that process stops they become something else.

That's true, officially. But all the same, the only people who will care about what happens to a brown dwarf, or a star, when it "dies" are people who will call themselves "stellar astronomers." Those people are likely to call the objects "stars" anyway, simply because their starlike attributes are the reasons they are of interest to them. So those people are never going to care what the official definition of a star or brown dwarf is, they're still going to think of a white dwarf as a kind of star, or a "sub-brown dwarf" as a kind of brown dwarf, all the same.

 

[jim mcnamara]

New paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.08781

The EBLM project III. A Saturn-size low-mass star at the hydrogen-burning limit

Alexander von Boetticher, Amaury H.M.J. Triaud, Didier Queloz, Sam Gill, Monika Lendl, Laetitia Delrez, David R. Anderson, Andrew Collier Cameron, Francesca Faedi, Michaël Gillon, Yilen Gómez Maqueo Chew, Leslie Hebb, Coel Hellier, Emmanuël Jehin, Pierre F.L. Maxted, David V. Martin, Francesco Pepe, Don Pollacco, Damien Ségransan, Barry Smalley, Stéphane Udry, Richard West
(Submitted on 27 Jun 2017 (v1), last revised 12 Jul 2017 (this version, v2))

We report the discovery of an eclipsing binary system with mass-ratio q ~ 0.07. After identifying a periodic photometric signal received by WASP, we obtained CORALIE spectroscopic radial velocities and follow-up light curves with the Euler and TRAPPIST telescopes. From a joint fit of these data we determine that EBLM J0555-57 consists of a sun-like primary star that is eclipsed by a low-mass companion, on a weakly eccentric 7.8-day orbit. Using a mass estimate for the primary star derived from stellar models, we determine a companion mass of 85±4MJup (0.081M?) and a radius of 0.84+0.14-0.04RJup (0.084R?) that is comparable to that of Saturn. EBLM J0555-57Ab has a surface gravity logg2=5.50+0.03-0.13 and is one of the densest non-stellar-remnant objects currently known. These measurements are consistent with models of low-mass stars.

 

[|Glitch|]

New paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.08781

The EBLM project III. A Saturn-size low-mass star at the hydrogen-burning limit

Alexander von Boetticher, Amaury H.M.J. Triaud, Didier Queloz, Sam Gill, Monika Lendl, Laetitia Delrez, David R. Anderson, Andrew Collier Cameron, Francesca Faedi, Michaël Gillon, Yilen Gómez Maqueo Chew, Leslie Hebb, Coel Hellier, Emmanuël Jehin, Pierre F.L. Maxted, David V. Martin, Francesco Pepe, Don Pollacco, Damien Ségransan, Barry Smalley, Stéphane Udry, Richard West
(Submitted on 27 Jun 2017 (v1), last revised 12 Jul 2017 (this version, v2))

We report the discovery of an eclipsing binary system with mass-ratio q ~ 0.07. After identifying a periodic photometric signal received by WASP, we obtained CORALIE spectroscopic radial velocities and follow-up light curves with the Euler and TRAPPIST telescopes. From a joint fit of these data we determine that EBLM J0555-57 consists of a sun-like primary star that is eclipsed by a low-mass companion, on a weakly eccentric 7.8-day orbit. Using a mass estimate for the primary star derived from stellar models, we determine a companion mass of 85±4MJup (0.081M?) and a radius of 0.84+0.14-0.04RJup (0.084R?) that is comparable to that of Saturn. EBLM J0555-57Ab has a surface gravity logg2=5.50+0.03-0.13 and is one of the densest non-stellar-remnant objects currently known. These measurements are consistent with models of low-mass stars.

I read about that. It was originally thought to be a planet because it was discovered by transiting its parent star so they knew its diameter, they just didn't know how dense it was until later. It is also a good example of why diameter is not included in the criteria for defining stars. Interestingly, they just recently (March 2017) theorized that the smallest mass a star can have is 70.2 Jupiter masses. Now we have observational evidence of a star with only 85 ± 4 Jupiter masses.

The paper states "[t]he mass and radius of J0555-57Ab are consistent with models of a metal-poor, low-mass star", and they give an estimated Fe/H -0.24 ± 0.16 dex (40% to 83% of Sol's metallicity). However, I was unable to find anything about the estimated age of the star.

 

[|Glitch|]

That's true, officially. But all the same, the only people who will care about what happens to a brown dwarf, or a star, when it "dies" are people who will call themselves "stellar astronomers." Those people are likely to call the objects "stars" anyway, simply because their starlike attributes are the reasons they are of interest to them. So those people are never going to care what the official definition of a star or brown dwarf is, they're still going to think of a white dwarf as a kind of star, or a "sub-brown dwarf" as a kind of brown dwarf, all the same.

I think more than just "stellar astronomers" care about the correct application of labels because it is how we communicate. If we want to be understood we have to use labels that everyone understands, or at least are "officially accepted." If we call a single Jupiter mass planet, that has never had any hope of fusing deuterium, a "sub-brown dwarf" just because it happens to be a rogue planet in a cluster that becomes very confusing and is clearly a misnomer.

We don't necessarily have to be able to clearly define something before we label it, but we do have to agree with the label or communication becomes problematic.

 

[Ken G]

I think more than just "stellar astronomers" care about the correct application of labels because it is how we communicate.

But the point is "we" are many different people, and we communicate many different things. An elementary school teacher has to tell her/his class what a planet is and how many there are. Someone calling themself a "planetary astronomer" most likely has no interest at all in what that teacher is going to say, because they are going to be interested in much more than 8 objects, and they are going to be interested in attributes of those objects that don't come into the formal definition of a "planet." So how we communicate is exactly the point-- the way planetary astronomers communicate about the objects of their interest has very little to do with the official definition of a planet, and the way stellar astronomers communicate has very little to do with the official definition of a star (in particular, the role of fusion will be just as interesting if it is currently happening, as if it is about to start or has recently finished-- no stellar astronomer is going to say "but fusion has finished in that object, so it's not a star any more, so I don't care about it.")

If we want to be understood we have to use labels that everyone understands, or at least are "officially accepted."

And just as important as having those labels, is the need to, quite often, ignore them. That's my point, that's what actually happens in research areas-- the labels are widely ignored because they just aren't helpful in understanding these objects. There may be things we discover about Pluto that help us understand Mercury, and vice versa, and if so, no one is going to care if one is officially a "planet" and the other isn't-- except in those elementary school classrooms where it's going to be the "right answer" to some question the teacher asks.

If we call a single Jupiter mass planet, that has never had any hope of fusing deuterium, a "sub-brown dwarf" just because it happens to be a rogue planet in a cluster that becomes very confusing and is clearly a misnomer.

I agree that is a distinction that might be of no interest to someone studying Jupiter-mass planets, or it might be a distinction that is important to someone interested in using stellar transits to understand the atmosphere. Either way, the labels are sometimes useful, and more often ignored. So we probably do need to have these kinds of labels like "brown dwarf" or "sub-brown dwarf", but we should not imagine the labels are terribly important, or that anyone will pay much attention to them. It's much ado about nothing, really.

We don't necessarily have to be able to clearly define something before we label it, but we do have to agree with the label or communication becomes problematic.

Although that's true, I would tend to focus on how important it is to not rely on labels, given all the stress that currently is aimed at the need for them. No doubt it's nice to have good labels, as they can allow faster communication, but imagining that our labels can really be relied on to replace careful communication can actually create miscommunication. So better to say what you mean in some detail when it is needed, and only use labels when the communication is allowed to be rather imprecise. All you have to do is find some random definition of "star" to see what I mean, it's never going to substitute for really saying what you are talking about.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi @|Glitch|:

After thinking about the "homework" problem (my post #18) for a while, and unsuccessfully trying to research facts needed to do calculations, I have given up on it. I have located the title, etc., of a recent book which seems promising that it might have some of the facts I need to do the calculation. I have asked my local research librarian to try to borrow a copy for me.

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540431022​

I do have a new related question that has not so far been included in this thread's discussion. From all I have read I think I understand the concept discussed here of creating a definition of a "brown dwarf" in terms of theoretical criteria about the possibility that such an astronomical body can burn deuterium:

H+D->³He.​

Apparently such a definition does not include a requirement that an observation of such a body actually detect the burning of deuterium. It also seems that the definition does not require even the theoretical possibility of making such an observation with current (or expected near future) observational technology.

Q: Does anyone know if it is theoretically possibility to make such an observation with current (or expected near future) observational technology?

Regards,
Buzz

 

[stefan r]

Hi @|Glitch|:

After thinking about the "homework" problem (my post #18) for a while, and unsuccessfully trying to research facts needed to do calculations, I have given up on it. I have located the title, etc., of a recent book which seems promising that it might have some of the facts I need to do the calculation. I have asked my local research librarian to try to borrow a copy for me.

http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783540431022​

I do have a new related question that has not so far been included in this thread's discussion. From all I have read I think I understand the concept discussed here of creating a definition of a "brown dwarf" in terms of theoretical criteria about the possibility that such an astronomical body can burn deuterium:

H+D->³He.​

Apparently such a definition does not include a requirement that an observation of such a body actually detect the burning of deuterium. It also seems that the definition does not require even the theoretical possibility of making such an observation with current (or expected near future) observational technology.

Q: Does anyone know if it is theoretically possibility to make such an observation with current (or expected near future) observational technology?

Regards,
Buzz

Measuring fusion in the sun is challenging. Theoretically you could put a neutrino detector inorbit around another star. However, proton to deuterium does not kick out a neutrino.

Easiest measurement is the surface. If there is no deuterium then it is likely that it burned. Taking measurements for a few thousand years should tell you something about the stars internal dynamics.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Taking measurements for a few thousand years should tell you something about the stars internal dynamics.

Hi stefan:

I like your sense of humor.

Regards,
Buzz