| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hot Jupiter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Is libration a process? The HAT-P-1b article says circularization is caused by tidal forces.--Gbleem 20:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the above (w and wo hyphen) to this page. I'm assuming that the terms are essentially synonyms. A planet in a short period must necessarily be massive to avoid being torn apart(?).
Is there is some differentiation between the two terms, the redirect can be made its own article. A quick look at google scholar shows both terms in use in research papers. Marskell 15:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be nothing either unique or special about planets that have an orbital period shorter that 24 hours. This is an arbitrary boundary determined by the fact that Earth has an rotation of 24 hrs. The category ultra-short period planets should be removed. No-one has identified anything unique or interesting about the Wasp planets (18b,19b et al). This category should be removed for clarity Gmoney484 (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a stylistic question about this sentence:
"In comparison, a Hot Jupiter is about eight times closer to its star than Mercury is to the Sun."
Does WP have a style guide instruction for this sort of issue? I've seen these comparisons made with greater frequency both on WP and on other web sites.
The comparison is confusing because the word "times" indicates a mathematical increase in distance but "closer" indicates a mathematical decrease in distance. So it doesn't really mean anything.
This might mean that Mercury is eight times farther away from the sun than a Hot Jupiter is from its star. Or it might mean that Hot Jupiter planets are one-eighth or about 12% the distance that Mercury is.
But maybe it's something else; I have to guess about the real meaning.
24.7.7.199 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it when I first read it, but now that you point it out, the language is somewhat confusing. You can tell from the context that they mean hot Jupiters orbit at about one eighth the distance from Mercury to the sun (about 0.05 AU, versus Mercury's orbit of approximately 0.383 AU). I have changed the wording of the sentence to clarify its meaning. (Colinsweet 11:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In both of the external links, the format of the capitalization is "hot Jupiter" (unless, of course, it is at the beginning of a sentence or as in the title of the article). I changed the capitalization to be consistent with this format.(Colinsweet 12:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Info about first known hot jupiter (and for that matter statistic and actual records in mass, size, or distance) is nowhere in article. This is obvious thing to do! --84.10.180.181 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand "a number" of close binary stars transfer matter between them - would the same phenomena occur with Hot Jupiter planets - or would there merely be "material aquisition" from the solar wind?Jackiespeel (talk)
for more infor on what you're refering to, look up roche lobes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_lobe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.167.82 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between Hot Neptunes and Hot Jupiters.75.164.208.19 (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best if the article on Puffy planets is merged into a section of this page discussing the various radius anomalies detected in transiting hot Jupiters. It is also not entirely clear that "puffy planet" is the most common term for such worlds, as "inflated hot Jupiter" brings up more Google hits, including several papers in the first page of hits, as opposed to "puffy planet" which brings up news reports. Icalanise (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Kheider (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wouldn't it be less confusing and more accurate to say in the article that hot Jupiters: "...nearly all have low eccentricities." instead of saying that: "They all have low eccentricities" because, for some hot Jupiters, "...being circularized" hasn't happened yet? As is the case maybe for HAT-P-2b, HAT-P-34b and COROT-10b which are all hot Jupiters in still very eccentric orbits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.99.79 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section General characteristics: "Due to high levels of insolation they are of a lower density than they would otherwise be. This has implications for radius determination". I don't think this is well explained. For instance, is it the lower opacity of the planet's upper atmosphere that is a problem when it is of lower density? What is the mechanism that makes the lower density a problem for radius determination? --Mortense (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As more data is gathered, there are now many planets discovered with an orbital period less than a day and which are not gas giants. Examples include Kepler-42c, Kepler 70b and Kepler 70c and Kepler 78b. Should we keep "Ultra-short period planet" as a redirect to this page or not or should we expand ultra-short period planet definition to include terrestrial planets? --Artman40 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I was watching a documentary about the death of the sun, and I came up with an idea. Could Mercury be the leftover core of a Hot Jupiter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.93.27 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How could a gas giant become tidally locked? The sentence,『This also causes the planet to synchronize its rotation and orbital periods, so it always presents the same face to its parent star — the planet becomes tidally locked to the star.』seems to me to be not backed by any evidence and to defy physics; a gas giant has no solid "face" to present to its star. Abductive (reasoning) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The General Characteristics section says
They exhibit high-speed winds distributing the heat from the day side to the night side, thus the temperature difference between the two sides is relatively low.
Do we actually know this from observation? Is this a "by definition;" that something that did not exhibit this characteristic would not qualify as a "hot Jupiter?" Or is this something assumed based on what we know about Jovian planets, fluid/gas mechanics, etc.? I didn't slap a "citation needed" tag on it because I don't have nearly enough familiarity with the subject to know if it needs one, but it might be good to flesh this out even a little bit to clarify the basis of the assertion.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC) (who may not be back for months, if ever. This is a drive-by suggestion)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hot Jupiter. 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, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Changed the definition of hot Jupiter. The original definition was semi-major axis between 0.015 AU and 0.05 AU. But this definition was not shown in the previously cited article and I don't know the basis of that claim.
I believe P<10 days is a more generally used definition. I saw it in several contexts. As the citation, I listed an ApJ aprticle. I'm not sure how to make the citation more pretty in Wikipedia. Hope someone can help me on this.
Although this definition is contradictory with the "111 days" in the "General characteristics". But the "111 days" refers to HD 80606b, which is on a very elliptical orbit and is not a typical hot Jupiter. I suggest to change that part also. Aardwolf first (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
