Talk:TRAPPIST-1

File:Possible Interiors of the TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanets.jpg

File:Possible Interiors of the TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanets.jpg has been commented out for a while because it incorrectly claims that the density is precisely known. There is an alternative file File:Possible Interiors of the TRAPPIST-1 Exoplanets 02.png which however lacks all text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Markup vs Template:Starbox begin

The page currently does not use Template:Starbox begin b/c that template repeatedly links several pages, as per Nimbus227's comments at the featured article candidacy. However, the current markup is messy, probably will become a maintenance issue, and folks at Template talk:Starbox begin have said that they don't think it's highly important to avoid overlinking in the template also for reader reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Table before or after planet sections?

I am not convinced that putting the table after the planet sections is useful. For good or ill, the planet sections are just brief summaries and the table is the more important information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that the orbital information should be placed last because this is not what the general reader looks for first. But that's just my opinion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Good job with the explanatory notes though! This is something IMO all FA articles about a technical topic should have. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox breaks popups

This edit by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus causes the popup to display the literal wikisource:

! style="background-color: #FFFFC0; text-align: center;" colspan="2"|

rather than the first sentence or so of the article itself. I assume it is due to the fact that the infobox header is in a template whereas this row of the table is directly in the article, and the light-weight popup doesn't do a full parsing/transclusion to recognize that it's a table. Did a {{Starbox character}} get subst:ed by accident? DMacks (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't an accident, unfortunately - as noted on the FAC page the template overlinks and thus was deemed unacceptable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Boo. Ok. Convenience links: FAC-discussion subtopic and Template talk:Starbox begin#How to make the template not overlink. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Where to mention JWST

Currently, the first mention of the James Webb Space Telescope is in the TRAPPIST-1b section. I've put a second link in the scientific importance section since it's more important there, but I'd like to get second opinions on where to put the link and where the acronym - maybe one in the lead too? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sentence on atmosphere

I've added some information in the "potential atmospheres" section on the ruling-out of an atmosphere around TRAPPIST-1b but I don't really like it. Also, while anyone's here, can anyone check whether the nbsp bits need to be added anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Stellar obliquity

Not sure if this source warrants an update. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Black hole mediated escape

This source discusses the possibility that active phases of Sagittarius A* might remove hydrogen/oxygen atmospheres of the middle TRAPPIST-1 planets. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The percentage of potentially removed gasses from the atmospheres of these exoplanets is (according to that paper) in the order of 1e-14, much lower than the measurement accuracy of the mass of the planets in question. While it's certainly a possibility, I wouldn't worry about it. The influence of the star itself on atmospheric losses is much greater, because it's so much closer. Dhrm77 (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

JWST is inconclusive (currently) on the presence of atmosphere

I'm aware of the two Nature articles published last year, but it is often omitted that these preliminary observations are single photometric measurements confined to a single bandpass, 13.5–16.6 μm. It is impossible to rule out presence of all thick atmospheres solely based on a single bandpass [1](p. 9). Yes the measurements rule out a large subset of CO2 atmospheres, but there still exist subset of CO2 atmosphere that can exhibit airless feature at 13.5–16.6 μm but may show up in other bandpasses. If we only have a single bandpass data, then presence of thick CO2 atmosphere cannot be ruled out, though the most parsimonious interpretation would be airless/thin atmosphere.

Indeed, more observations in a different bandpass 11.6–14.2 μm has found surprisingly low emission that is possibly indicative of heat redistribution by a thick atmosphere [2]. A type of thick atmosphere that show up in 11.6–14.2 μm wavelength, but not in 13.5–16.6 μm, is CO2 with thermal inversion.

Nothing conclusive about the presence of atmospheres on 1b and 1c until double phase curve or more bandpass measurements out, maybe later this year! Aleral Wei (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, while I concur sorta, so as long as published sources don't say "actually, we can't rule out an atmosphere with this" or "actually, this isn't consistent with an airless planet" we can't say that on Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right, my comment mainly addresses the apparently contradictory conclusions reached by the two papers, [1] and [2]. The second paper, more comprehensively, analyzed two bandpasses 11.6–14.2 and 13.5–16.6 μm and concluded with possibly thick atmosphere on 1b only seen in 11.6–14.2 but not in 13.5–16.6 μm. I thought it would be more updated to include the 2nd paper's conclusion in the wikipedia. Aleral Wei (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The second paper is a preprint that has not yet been accepted for publication. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There is also this preprint which argues that no atmosphere should present around any of the planets, but it's a radiative cooling analysis and given this I think that neglecting the atomic line cooling is likely to make a grossly inaccurate analysis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Observation >> numerical modeling in terms of evidence level. Given the rather clear absorption feature at 11.6–14.2 μm, I will be rather surprised if double phase curve confirms the planet airless. Sometimes I wonder if 11.6–14.2 μm was arranged to observe first before 13.5–16.6 μm, we are probably drowning in papers on how CO2 rich these planets are. But I'm in no hurry to edit anything, and don't plan to even after the 11.6–14.2 μm paper gets through peer review. I'm certainly expecting phase curve to confirm the existence of atmosphere, later this year or the next. Aleral Wei (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)