Talk:Upsilon Andromedae e

Comments[edit]

Hi I am Dr. Carlos E. Chavez, I am a co-author of the article A Fourth Planet in Upsilon Andromedae and I found a couple of mistales in the text:

"This planet is in a 3:1 resonance with Upsilon Andromedae d"

The correct sentence should be: "This planet is in a 3:1 resonance with Upsilon Andromedae c" As it is stated in our article.

Another mistake would be: "while the inner two planets are in apsidal alignment."

The correct sentence is the following: "while planet c and d are in apsidal alignment." Planet c and d to be more precise about which planets are in apsidal alignment (there is another planet that is more internal to these two: planet b).

I have made the corrections myself and I would appreciate you do not make changes.

Kind Regards,

Carlos E. Chavez

IA-UNAM sede Ensenada

Actually there is a mistake in ref, instead of saying "This planet is in a 3:1 resonance with Upsilon Andromedae c", it should be "This planet is in a 3:1 resonance with Upsilon Andromedae d", that's because with the period of 3849 days for e and d has a period of 1290 days while c has a period of only 241 days. So I changed it back! BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discovery paper for this planet does not reference the recent astrometric results (McArthur et al. 2010) which give the full 3D orientation of planets c and d. Presumably this is because that paper was not available when this paper was being written. This leads to problems: Curiel et al. (2011) treats the system as being edge-on and coplanar, with the apsides of planets c and d being aligned with c and d having their radial-velocity minimum masses. In the astrometric solution, the orbits are close to being face-on, and the difference in the longitude of the ascending node Ω which is not detectable via RV measurements means the apsides are not aligned, despite the similar values for the argument of periastron ω. The masses of planets c and d are substantially larger than assumed in Curiel et al. (2011), and the mass hierarchy is reversed. In light of this, I think we should hold off on the discussion of the dynamics and stability of this planet's orbit until we can get a reference that takes into account the astrometric model of the system. Icalanise (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding which planet it is claimed to be in resonance with, it looks like Curiel et al. (2011) have swapped the designations of planets c and d throughout their paper (e.g. table 1), consistently using the designation "c" for the planet every other reference refers to as "d" and vice-versa. I am surprised this was not spotted! Icalanise (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

We usually don't have articles on unconfirmed exoplanets. We had a similar case with Gliese 667 Cd,Ce, Cf, Cg and Ch and the final result was merge. So I suggest this article should be merged into Upsilon Andromedae, the parent article. 117daveawesome (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, existence is questionable at best. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because it may not exist. 112.120.56.203 (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP editor is the same as the nominator according to the nominator's user page. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty. Or very very careless. Lithopsian (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, since it is unconfirmed. Fiddlestickers (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, since Alpha Centauri Ab is unconfirmed. (90482) 2004 DW (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Lithopsian (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section until confirmed. Cache yo (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]