Talk:List of exoplanet extremes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sources[edit]

The sources were left behind on extrasolar planet when this was split off

PSR B1257+12 D[edit]

PSR B1257+12 D could be defined as a planet if the 2006 redefinition of planet... it's larger than Ceres. 132.205.93.195 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAT-P-1[edit]

How does the discovery of HAT-P-1 affect the status of HD 209458 b as the largest and least dense? ThreeBlindMice 02:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old table[edit]

Title Planet Star Notes
Oldest PSR B1620-26c PSR B1620-26 12.7 billion years old
Youngest 2M1207 b 2M1207 8 million years; first exoplanet imaged; first orbiting brown dwarf
Most massive HD 136118 b HD 136118 11.9 MJupiter (Note: Only the minimum mass is known.)
Least massive PSR B1257+12 A PSR B1257+12 0.02 MEarth (Note: PSR 1257+12 system may include possible asteroidal object, but it is not massive enough to qualify as a planet)
Largest COROT-Exo-1b COROT-Exo-1 Has a radius of 1.78 RJupiter (Note: Only radii of transiting planets are known.)
Smallest Gliese 436 b Gliese 436 Has a radius of 4.327 REarth (Note: Only radii of some planets are known.)
Most distant OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb OGLE-2005-BLG-390L 21,500 ± 3,300 light years (Note: A controversial microlensing event of lobe A of the double gravitational lens Q0957+561 suggests that there is a planet in the lensing galaxy lying at redshift 0.355 (7.8 Gly).)
Least distant Epsilon Eridani b Epsilon Eridani 10.4 light years
Most dense ? ? ?
Least dense TrES-4 GSC 02620-00648[1] 0.24 g/cm³ (Note: Only mass and radius are known.)
Longest period 2M1207b 2M1207 2450+ years
Shortest period OGLE-TR-56b OGLE-TR-56 1.2 days (Note: SWEEPS-10 (awaiting confirmation) has an orbital period of 0.424 days (10.2 hours).)
Most eccentric orbit HD 80606 b HD 80606 eccentricity of 0.927
Least eccentric orbit PSR B1257+12 A PSR B1257+12 eccentricity of 0.0
Most inclined orbit HAT-P-2b HD 147506 inclination 90°
Least inclined orbit Epsilon Eridani b Epsilon Eridani inclination 30.1° (Note: Most planets do not have their inclinations measured.)
Largest orbit 2M1207b 2M1207 55+ AU
Smallest orbit Gliese 876 d Gliese 876 0.021 AU (Note: SWEEPS-10 (awaiting confirmation) has an orbital distance of 0.008 AU (1.2 million km).)
Title Star Notes
Lowest Metalicity HD 155358 −0.68 dex
Note: Planets are thought to preferentially form from nebulæ with a metal-rich composition. The lowest metalicity star about which planets can form is thus important to formation models and future planet searches.

excised sections[edit]

==Discovery firsts==
Title Planet Star Year Notes
First planet discovered PSR B1257+12 B, C PSR B1257+12 1992 first extrasolar planets discovered
Note 1: The planet around Gamma Cephei was already suspected in 1988.
Note 2: HD 114762 b was discovered in 1989, but was not confirmed as a planet before 1996.

first known pulsar planets
first planets discovered by pulsar timing method

51 Pegasi b 51 Pegasi 1995 first known planet orbiting a Sun-like star

first planet discovered by radial velocity method

Gliese 876 b Gliese 876 1998 first known planet orbiting a red dwarf
HD 209458 b HD 209458 1999 first transiting planet
Note: OGLE-TR-56 b is the first planet found by transit method.
Iota Draconis b Iota Draconis 2002 first known planet orbiting a giant star
OGLE-2003-BLG-235Lb OGLE-2003-BLG-235L/MOA-2003-BLG-53L 2004 first planet found by gravitational lensing method
PSR B1620-26c PSR B1620-26 1993 first known planet orbiting a white dwarf (confirmed 2003)
2M1207b 2M1207 2004 first known planet orbiting a brown dwarf
first directly imaged planet
OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb OGLE-2005-BLG-390L 2006 first cool, possibly rocky/icy planet around main-sequence star
First free-floating planet discovered S Ori 70 n/a 2004 has mass of 3 MJupiter, needs confirmation
Note: Free-floating objects are not usually considered planets.
First planet in a multiple star system discovered 55 Cancri b 55 Cancri 1996 55 Cnc has distant red dwarf companion
Note: Gamma Cephei is the first relatively close binary with a planet.
First planet orbiting multiple stars discovered PSR B1620-26c PSR B1620-26 1993 orbits pulsar - white dwarf pair
First multiple planet system discovered PSR 1257+12 A, B, C PSR 1257+12 1992 a pulsar planetary system
First planet in star cluster PSR B1620-26c PSR B1620-26 1993 located in Globular Cluster M4
==Most Earthlike planets==
Title Planet Star Notes
Closest planet to 1 MEarth PSR 1257+12 C PSR 1257+12 3.9 MEarth
Closest planet to 1 AU orbital HD 142 b HD 142 0.980 AU
HD 28185 b HD 28185 1.031 AU
HD 128311 b HD 128311 1.02 AU
Closest planet to 365-day orbit HD 142 b HD 142 337 d
HD 92788 b HD 92788 378 d
Closest to 300 K Mu Arae e Mu Arae 308 K
Gliese 581 c Gliese 581 290 K; A first Earth-like planet in habitable zone, possibility of liquid water.

Least massive[edit]

I've added this, because we know much about the lower bound of planetary mass for discovered planets. Since the exact mass of the pulsar planet is known, and it is smaller than the lower bound of any non-pulsar planet, it seems reasonable to include on the list. 132.205.44.5 23:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Devil's advocate here, true masses are only known for planets B and C. The true mass of planet A is based on the assumption that it lies in the mean plane of the outer two planets. While this is almost certainly a reasonable assumption (the two outer planets are nearly coplanar), strictly the true mass of PSR B1257+12A is unknown. Chaos syndrome 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to tell the most massive known extrasolar planet.[edit]

Well, aside from XO-3b not yet being published in a refereed journal (only thing we have is some text submitted to an abstracts listing service and a press release), saying we can tell the most massive planet is misleading, because it is perfectly possible that one of the planets for which we know only a minimum mass is more massive and still below the brown dwarf boundary (which if defined by deuterium fusion is actually a function of metallicity: the value of 13 Jupiter masses is for solar composition). Chaos syndrome 07:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2M1207b known to be in a bound orbit?[edit]

According to [1], the object 2M1207b may or may not be in a bound orbit around 2M1207. So while on the assumption that the orbit is bound, this object would have the largest orbit of any known planetary mass object, I'm not sure making the assumption is valid. I'm going to remove the entry for largest orbit on this basis - feel free to put it back if you can cite evidence that the orbit is bound. Chaos syndrome 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add category[edit]

I propose "Least massive planet around normal star", because it is distinct from "least massive in general". Why? Simple I'm not interested in some dead world around some pulsar. But I would be interesed in record holder by lowest mass around normal star. --84.10.180.181 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define normal star. Do you mean main sequence star, Sun-like star, star still actively fusing? Or star larger than a red dwarf, of Sun-like metallicity, smaller than a subgiant, and on the main sequence? One can argue that a "normal star" is a red dwarf, only. 70.55.87.10 (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia Catalog can probably answer this question. Today, the confirmed exoplanet with the lowest known mass (not minimum mass) appears to be LHS 1678 b, at up to 0.16 Earth-masses, orbiting a red dwarf. Or else it's Kepler-138 b, also orbiting a red dwarf, at 0.029 to 0.127 Earth-masses. Either one may be be more massive than Mercury, though. :I would also want to see a category for highest known inclination. 2601:441:5000:13E0:249B:F4FF:6165:5B41 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1RXS J160929.1-210524 b[edit]

Is 1RXS J160929.1-210524 b the planet with the largest orbit? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excised 6 August 2010[edit]

Title Star Planets Data Notes
Longest orbital period
(Longest year) 		HD 80606 b [2] HD 80606 [2] 111.436 ± 0.003 days (0.30509 years) [3]
Largest orbit 1RXS J160929.1-210524 b 1RXS J160929.1-210524 330 AU
Lowest Metalicity HD 155358

HD 155358 b
HD 155358 c

−0.68 dex Note: Planets are thought to preferentially form from nebulæ with a metal-rich composition. The lowest metalicity star about which planets can form is thus important to formation models and future planet searches.

This was recently excised. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal notes:

  • (Longest orbital period) HD 80606b is not the longest orbital period; longest orbital period is uncertain as the widest-separation exoplanets do not have well-determined orbits
  • (Largest orbit) this object does not have a well-determined orbit, and the radial separation is not known at all
  • (Lowest metallicity) depending on definition of "planet" there may well be lower-metallicity planet hosts; removed pending rigorous definition of "planet"

76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HD 80606b[edit]

As this is the longest well characterized orbital period, it should go in the table, with a note that many others have longer not well characterized periods. (like the notes about SWEEPS-10 for other planets) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include citations with edit updates.[edit]

In order to avoid edit reverts, please include appropriate references (WP:RS) with newly added updated edits - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Planet in a quadruple star system confirmed[edit]

A planet currently named PH1 has been discovered around KIC 4862625 system, now known to have of 4 stars. Source here. --Artman40 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HEC: Top 10 Lists of Exoplanets[edit]

Is http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/top10 an acceptable source? It has a note


Which seems to make this a rather poor source to use. It's being used to update this page, List of extrasolar planet extremes, which the source claims is in need of updating... so seems to be soliciting edits to Wikipedia to match itself... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest planets in habitable zone[edit]

Hello,
I don't know where to include it, but I think it should be somewhere in this page :

  • Smallest planet in its star's habitable zone : Kepler 62 e and f
  • Smallest planet in a Sun-like star's habitable zone : Kepler 69 c

Thanks for adding it!
SenseiAC (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind adding them, though these are two of the few cases where the Solar System still holds a record. A problem is that the terms "Sun-like" and "habitable zone" do not have a fixed definition... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most distant protoplanet/planetissimal/planetary formation core[edit]

according to [2] there's a gap in the proplyd of TW Hydrae at twice Pluto's distance, with a suspected formation core of mass 6-28Mearth. It's called the "farthest forming planet", which table would it go in? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most Distant - Contradiction in confidence level between intro and category[edit]

I've just read this article the first time as a non-technical reader.

What is screaming out loud is a contradiction between the one line introduction, which states " The properties listed here are those for which values are known reliably.",

and the very first category of most distant, which states "A controversial microlensing event of lobe A of the double gravitationally lensed Q0957+561 suggests that there is a planet in the lensing galaxy lying at redshift 0.355 (3.7 Gly).[3][4]"'


The bold words (my emphasis) of "controversial" and "suggests" imply anything but "for which values are known reliably.".

For the article to become self-consistent, either the introduction needs to be changed to state that the article includes speculative information, or the speculative information should be removed. --Savlonn (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction, the "controversial" claim is only a "Note" to the actual record holder, another planet which is uncontroversial. But I wouldn't mind removing these "speculative" notes.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longest period[edit]

Although we don't yet know HD 106906 b's period, it is apparent that it likely exceeds that of Fomalhaut b. because HD 106906 b is now an estimated 650 AU from its primary, which has 1.5 +/- 0.1 solar masses, while Fomalhaut b has an estimated apastron of ~300 AU and its primary has 1.92 solar masses. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Least dense may be right, but density is off.[edit]

The mass of Kepler 453b is not that low. It's 0.1±16 Earth masses at 1 standard deviation. According to the original source on the discovery. Why anyone would use a 1 standard deviation measurement as an upper bound, especially when 49% of the range is below zero, is beyond me, but regardless, that means our 95% confidence interval is about 0-32 earth masses. Not 0.200. Not only don't we have 3 significant figures. We can't even truthfully state the order of magnitude. Is it 10 earth masses? 1? 0.1? 0.01? A kilo? All of these are within the error range as presented. Why we would arbitrarily choose 0.2(00) Earth masses is beyond me, especially given what we know about planets in this size range. I would be more inclined to give a value of 30 or 40 Earth masses, if we're in the business of making up numbers. Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1605v1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.127.160 (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop saying large errors are new records.[edit]

An upper bound with no lower bound, a lower bound with no upper bound, or huge errors do not equal a new record. Take the old Kepler-51d record. A planet of 6.5-8.7 Earth masses with a radius of 0.9 plus or minus 0.5 Jupiter radii. What's the density? 9 grams per liter? 120 grams per liter? 530 grams per liter?

The answer is that we have no business claiming its any of the above. It's less than 530 and more than 9, but that didn't mean we get to arbitrarily pick some point to call it at. That means that unless 530 is less dense than everything else, it's probably not the least dense. It's probably a case of randomly introduced statistical noise.

Quote reliable statistics please. Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.127.160 (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRAPPIST-1[edit]

Please check if the informnation provided here is affected by three planets of ultracool dwarf TRAPPIST-1 which have newly been found. Thanks in advance. Ernsts (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Mandushev (06 August 2007). "Largest Known Exoplanet Discovered". SPACE.com news service. Retrieved 2007-08-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference SD-2009-04-22 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Astronomy and Astrophysics, "Photometric and spectroscopic detection of the primary transit of the 111-day-period planet HD 80606 b", C. Moutou, et al., 25 February 2009, Volume 498, Issue 1, 2009, pp.L5-L8, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200911954 , Bibcode:2009A&A...498L...5M , arXiv:0902.4457v2

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of exoplanet extremes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of exoplanet extremes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most massive and most dense[edit]

I have reverted the recent edits by User:Ysku. A red dwarf star is clearly not a planet. Also the most dense is not Kepler-131c - that comes from a paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4195 which says the density is unphysically high and the mass must be too large and is anyway highly uncertain. The reference for Kelt-1b gives the most uptodate density for Kelt-1b and Corot-3b and says Kelt-1b is the most dense. Fdfexoex (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of "most dense" listing[edit]

I've altered the listing for the most dense exoplanet to display K2-38b instead of EPIC 22881391 b. After some research, I wasn't able to determine the definitive densest exoplanet, however, K2-38b was the densest that I could find. In any case, it's at least less wrong than the previous listing for most dense, which was only 1.884g/cm3, which is about three times lighter than Earth itself. If there is a more dense exoplanet, please do change the listing, as I explained in the edit summary, this is a shaky change. Mexxmer (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Systems[edit]

This is an exoplanet list. Then why is the Solar System included in the multiplanetary systems records? Maybe we should rename the record to "Exo-multiplanetary system with largest range in planetary mass, log scale".🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same with the "Multiplanetary system with smallest range in planetary mass, log scale". We should rename it to "Exo-multiplanetary system with smallest range in planetary mass, log scale". --🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of exoplanet extremes[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of exoplanet extremes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "exoplanet.eu":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_exoplanet_extremes&oldid=1203641617"