4 ms·

Here is an imgur link of the plots, as far as I could follow along: https://imgur.com/a/6TauNoU https://imgur.com/a/6TauNoU I'm not really seeing anything in t

Here is an imgur link of the plots, as far as I could follow along: https://imgur.com/a/6TauNoU https://imgur.com/a/6TauNoU I'm not really seeing anything in the non-log scaled y-axis data. But the log scales of both data do seem to show three clear 'islands' of planetary sizes. EDIT: These' islands' in the data correspond to 3 planetary types (kindaaaa): Big and heavy super-gas-giants, small and lighter rocky planets, and heavy and smaller-ish gas giants. It's interesting to see there is a gap between the gas giant sizes and that it's not continious, despite them all being the same-ish mass.

fwip 7y ago
https://imgur.com/a/CLxSFIq https://imgur.com/a/CLxSFIq this is the 'gap' between .1MJup and .2 MJup - you can see it passes neatly between the islands you've observed.
- Retric 7y ago
  Odd to call that a gap as it’s filled with planets. At best it’s a lower density area.
  - petschge 7y ago
    If you check the histogram plot at exoplanet.eu (also at https://imagebin.ca/v/4hRAHBxEtEbv https://imagebin.ca/v/4hRAHBxEtEbv for your convenience) you see that the density is quite a bit lower. And "Fulton gap" is simply a better name than "Fulton's possibly lower density mass range".
    - Retric 7y ago
      It does look like a bimodal distribution though it’s really 3 separate groupings smooshed into two peaks. However, gap generally reserved for lower valleys ie band gap etc. So, while shorter the term is simply misleading.
      - petschge 7y ago
        You can get rid of the gas giant in your analysis by excluding everything further out than 0.2 AU. The distribution then separates more clearly into to peaks with a gap in between. But that is something I can not get in a minute or two in the online plotting tool. Also you should be aware that astronomy and astrophysics has quite different conventions for naming things than say condensed matter. Part of the reason is that historically they were a separate science from physics. Part of the reason is that most of the knowledge is gained from (passive) observations, not actively controlled experiments.
        Retric 7y ago
        Thanks for that, I did not realize it was simply a different convention.
        petschge 7y ago
        Extra fun example: astronomy, especially radio astronomy definies left and right handed circular polarization exactly the opposite way to how optics does it...

fwip 7y ago

https://imgur.com/a/CLxSFIq https://imgur.com/a/CLxSFIq this is the 'gap' between .1MJup and .2 MJup - you can see it passes neatly between the islands you've observed.

Retric 7y ago
Odd to call that a gap as it’s filled with planets. At best it’s a lower density area.
- petschge 7y ago
  If you check the histogram plot at exoplanet.eu (also at https://imagebin.ca/v/4hRAHBxEtEbv https://imagebin.ca/v/4hRAHBxEtEbv for your convenience) you see that the density is quite a bit lower. And "Fulton gap" is simply a better name than "Fulton's possibly lower density mass range".
  - Retric 7y ago
    It does look like a bimodal distribution though it’s really 3 separate groupings smooshed into two peaks. However, gap generally reserved for lower valleys ie band gap etc. So, while shorter the term is simply misleading.
    - petschge 7y ago
      You can get rid of the gas giant in your analysis by excluding everything further out than 0.2 AU. The distribution then separates more clearly into to peaks with a gap in between. But that is something I can not get in a minute or two in the online plotting tool. Also you should be aware that astronomy and astrophysics has quite different conventions for naming things than say condensed matter. Part of the reason is that historically they were a separate science from physics. Part of the reason is that most of the knowledge is gained from (passive) observations, not actively controlled experiments.
      - Retric 7y ago
        Thanks for that, I did not realize it was simply a different convention.
        petschge 7y ago
        Extra fun example: astronomy, especially radio astronomy definies left and right handed circular polarization exactly the opposite way to how optics does it...