This Exoplanet’s Weird Orbit Defies the Rules of Physics | Hacker News Reader

This Exoplanet’s Weird Orbit Defies the Rules of Physics

inverse.com

6 pointssysadm1n7 comments

There's a name given in the article for the mechanism by which the planet's orbit became weird, and the same mechanism has been active in our own solar system. I am not convinced that "defies the rules of physics" is an appropriate title for this article.

Perhaps "This Exoplanet's Orbit Has Been Significantly Shifted Relative to Most Orbits" and while that isn't as interesting, it is significantly more accurate.

"This Exoplanet’s Weird Orbit Can Be Explained By Known Physics And The Addition Of Something We Haven't Yet Observed" is much more likely.

In human rhetoric I've noticed that there is a tendency to frame everything as if what we know today is the extent of all that can ever be known. When in fact we are naive and limited creatures who have nonetheless come up with some pretty astounding theories that have held up against repeated cases where something appears to defy physics until we learn that actually we can use the same physics and a minor update to our visibility into the system in question.

I see your point. (I think)

However in this instance I feel that the current physics framework will describe what's being observed.

Either:

- Small compounding influence of various factors over billions of years can make something seem out of place or odd.

- some other influence in the planets past is to blame.

- or both?

- or something else within the current physics framework at play.

Or I am just being a stubborn old fool who really wants to see some cool physics rule breakage in their lifetime that would allow for things such as ftl or mind uploads but know this is pure fantasy.

While I was studying physics and doing my PhD, I was dreaming of something substantial that would not be explained by current physics.

I participated at a few radio broadcasts where I publicly promised that if someone shows me something such as telekinesis, "energy concentration with hands", ... that is not fake, I would immediately change the topic pf my PhD because you know, Nobel Prize.

Despite several alerts (I was also in the skeptics club) I did not get the Nobel Prize and ultimately left physics after completing the PhD (not for that reason :)).

People often way that scientists refuse to believe in unexplained things but they actually would love to actually witness one.

What's more likely:

1. Our knowledge of physics requires updating due to this observation.

2. The thing being observed requires more observation because it doesn't currently make sense with our current physics framework.

I'd rather headlines and articles aim low and allow the reader excitement and discovery rather than be a let down where the reader is frustrated - the content of the article being nowhere near as exciting as the headline made it out to be.

A headline such as "Exoplanet discovered with crazy orbit" allows for the article to build, rather than take away.

I've got a shiny nickel that says no rules of physics have been defied.

I guarantee this exoplanet's weird orbit does not defy the rules of physics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com