Alpha Centauri Bb may be an ex-exoplanet. This long-sought world was announced with great excitement in 2012 as the first Earth-mass planet in the nearest star system to our own, but a new statistical analysis has revealed it to be nothing more than an apparition.
The original discovery was the work of , then at the Geneva Observatory in Switzerland, and his colleagues. Using four years of data from the in Chile, they looked for a periodic wobble in the light from Alpha Centauri B, a star just 4.3 light years away.
Advertisement
After stripping out noisy contributions to the starlight, including star spots that can mimic transiting planets and the star鈥檚 own rotation, the team spotted a signal that seemed to repeat every 3.24 days. They attributed this to the gravity of a planet of that orbital period pulling on the star.
Since then, other astronomers had tried other methods of filtering out the star鈥檚 noisy signal, and found that the evidence for planet Bb was inconclusive. But they couldn鈥檛 rule it out.
鈥淢ost people have been focusing their attention on trying to model the stellar activity,鈥� says of the University of Oxford. But now he and his colleagues have discovered that the signal could have been introduced by the way the measurements were made.
A matter of timing
The culprit was the timing. La Silla could only look at this star on clear nights and when it was not booked for other observations. This could have created a rhythm in the signal that had nothing to do with the presence of exoplanets.
鈥淚f you can only look at a star at a discrete set of times, this will lead to sometimes spurious signals being introduced,鈥� says Rajpaul.
To check whether the 3.24-day signal could have been real, he and his colleagues simulated signals that looked very close to the one observed by the original team, but deliberately didn鈥檛 include any planets. Then they used the original team鈥檚 model to analyse this fake data, and were still able to see a spurious 3.24-day signal 鈥� even though there were no planets to be found.聽鈥淕iven what we鈥檝e shown, it seems very, very implausible that the planet is real,鈥� he says.
It鈥檚 a bit like listening to a distant orchestra play, but only being able to hear the occasional note. If you try to guess the composition, your answer depends on the particular notes that make it through. You might get lucky and hear the distinctive opening tones of Beethoven鈥檚 fifth symphony, but another set of notes could call to mind an entirely different tune.
This timing problem is not normally an issue for exoplanet hunters, but the efforts to strip out stellar activity boosted other periodic signals in the data, leading to a false detection, says Rajpaul 鈥� something the original team couldn鈥檛 have anticipated.
鈥淭hey really did try to do a very thorough job,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he source of this bogus signal is totally unexpected.鈥� In future astronomers will need to keep the timings of their observations in mind when searching for hard-to-spot planets, he says.
Another exoplanet
鈥淭he trap here was the stellar rotation signal,鈥� agrees of the University of Cambridge. Earlier this year he led an inconclusive attempt to use the Hubble Space Telescope to spot Bb passing in front of its star.
Instead the team spotted another possible Earth-mass planet with a 20-day orbit, but the evidence wasn鈥檛 strong enough to claim a discovery. Rajpaul鈥檚 work doesn鈥檛 rule that planet out, he says. 鈥淲e are still hoping there are other planets in the system. We just have to find better techniques to detect them.鈥�
So if this possible new planet becomes the first official exoplanet found around this star, will it assume the name Alpha Centauri Bb, ?
鈥淐ommon sense would tell us that now this [original] planet is dismissed, we should put the name back into the pool of discovery,鈥� says Demory. But that could make the scientific literature confusing, says Rajpaul, so any new exoplanet might have to be called Alpha Centauri Bc. In that case Bb would live on as a ghost in the astronomical annals.
Reference:
(Image credit: Mark Garlick/SPL)
Correction, 21 October:聽When聽this article was first published, it incorrectly described some of the details of the team鈥檚 analysis. This has now been corrected.
