Talk:55 Cancri e

Untitled

I can't find any source for Geoff Marcy's supposed dismissal of the Jack Wisdom fit, or his comments about unresolved anomalies in the system. Could someone provide a source? Chaos syndrome 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a Good Article

After review, I've determined that this article meets the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive. I'm "Mass Passing" this article along with 9 others. The entire list is below. If new developments arise that would effect the references or comprehensiveness of this article, it may affect the others as well.

• 55 Cancri b
• 55 Cancri c
• 55 Cancri d
• 55 Cancri e
• 16 Cygni
• 16 Cygni Bb
• Upsilon Andromedae
• Upsilon Andromedae b
• Upsilon Andromedae c
• Upsilon Andromedae d

Keep up the good work. These articles are ideal "good articles". They can't be FA, because there is no way for them to get long enough, but they are as comprehensive and complete as possible, and represent a good effort on the part of the editors. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about my rationale. Phidauex 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Needed update

A new paper has been released by a team of astronomers who have observed the planet transiting its star (contrary to a statement currently in this article claiming that it does not transit) and as such have unearthed more physical characteristics about the planet, including the fact that it is the most dense planet ever found, its radius and actual mass. These need to be included here.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5230

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428201118.htm

Xelanared (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Related: the transits of 55 Cnc e have been confirmed by a second group: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0415 They derive the same mass (to within their uncertainties), but a larger radius and hence a lower density. Until that disagreement is resolved, we can merely say that the planet is at least as dense as Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.144.91 (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Actually we can't: the Demory et al. density is less than that of the Earth. Icalanise (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first paper above has now significantly downgraded the planet's mass, to about 5.9 g/cm³, close to the second group's value. (See the arxiv link posted above, which now has the updated version).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Carbon planet speculations

Don't get too carried away with the recent media hype that this has been discovered to be a carbon planet. The relevant paper [1] merely demonstrates that the radius is compatible with this object being a carbon planet. While there are certainly some interesting indications from the stellar chemical abundances that may make the carbon planet hypothesis more compelling, at the current time the data are still compatible with the waterworld hypothesis. The paper itself notes that further observations are required to determine the actual nature of the planet. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but its notable that this possibility is being talked about in media, and may be many peoples first introduction to "diamond planets", so some mention in context is ok.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, or third-ed. Not worth getting into a massive edit war about this fluff. At least, not worth it for me.--Zimriel (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Formation theories

(*this had an Out of date tag, July 2011 - and it's only more out of date now. I am moving this here until the nature of this planet is better constrained. --Zimriel (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC))

Prior to the transit observations in April 2011, composition and temperature were unknown. The formation models proposed for Mu Arae c do not apply to a planet this close to its star. Large terrestrial planets may be formed from material compacted by the inward migration of the system's gas giants.

Alternatively 55 Cancri e may be the core of a gas giant pushed inwards before it had time to accumulate a significant gaseous envelope. This was dismissed in 2004, as gas giants can survive for long timescales in the inner regions of a planetary system. However the star could have blown off a volatile layer via coronal mass ejection. In this model (also proposed for Gliese 876 d), the original composition was richer in volatile substances, such as water. As it arrived in range, the planet boiled away to a pressurised ocean of water (in the form of a supercritical fluid) separated from the silicate core by a layer of ice kept frozen by the high pressures in the planetary interior. Such a planet would have an atmosphere containing water vapor and free oxygen produced by the breakdown of water by ultraviolet radiation.

• Ideally any discussion of formation should address the various different models (at least the waterworld and carbon planet scenarios). At least some of the above parts are still relevant but rewrites are in order. Regarding the carbon-planet model, some justification is available in the Madhusudhan et al. (2012) arXiv paper (see section 3 of the paper) and it would be good to also reference Bond et al. (2010) [2]. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

7.8 or 8.63 Earth masses ?

The lead says one thing (7.8), the rest of the article, infobox and other articles say something different (8.63). Which is the real figure and which is the genuine source.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Artist's impressions

I have reverted the restoration of the artist's impression File:55_Cancri_e.png to the article. There are several reasons why I do not think this artist's impression should be included. Firstly, it is not from a reliable source, which violates WP:ASTROART. Secondly, it does not depict any known features of 55 Cancri e besides its sphericity. It does however, depict many features that are not known. There is no evidence whatsoever, nor even any published speculation, that 55 Cancri e has continents, oceans, or clouds, and yet the impression depicts all of those features. Because it depicts no known features, the artist's impression has no encyclopedic value. Because it depicts many features that are not known or even speculated about, it has a high potential to mislead readers. As a result, it adds no value to the article (indeed, I think it detracts from it), and I can see no reason to keep it. A2soup (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Artist's impressions confusing

The second picture does not seem to show the same planet as that depicted in the picture that heads the article. The planet a much father away from its parent star. Has this second picture been mislabelled and is actually meant to represent one of the other planets in the system? 86.138.120.101 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

New mass and radius numbers using new data

https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.08008

Both are a little higher. Still at preprint stage.©Geni (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It is possible a diamond planet

55 cancri e is worth $26.9 nonillion and truly a diamond planet, researchers say — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.109.180.228 (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)