4 ms·

Is this really the standard terminology? Well, it is close enough. The definition is that a brown dwarf forms like a star through gravitational collapse within

Is this really the standard terminology? Well, it is close enough. The definition is that a brown dwarf forms like a star through gravitational collapse within a protostellar nebula, but it just wasn't massive enough to ignite. However, a planet forms in an accretion disk around a star that is forming out of the larger cloud. Of course, nature does not always perfectly align itself within our neat categories, and it is not really possible to distinguish between a brown dwarf and a supermassive planet that happened to be ejected from its star. Anyway, perhaps such a supermassive planet that is not ejected should really be considered a brown dwarf in a binary with the "parent" star. For gravitational collapse to occur in the first place, however, requires a minimum density which sort of puts a lower limit on the mass of a brown dwarf, so smaller objects are not really going to form independent of an accretion disk, but they may form in one and be ejected as you say. So yes, there is kind of a practical line between planet and brown dwarf, but it is a bit of a fuzzy line.

munk-a 2y ago
Does this also hold for rogue planets? I was under the impression that some rogue planets could form outside of any star's accretion disk.
- dylan604 2y ago
  But they did form in some star's accretion disc, just not the one they are roguing their way through. In theory, Jupiter could have caused a planet to go rogue when it made it's way to the inner solar system.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  My understanding is that smaller rouge plants do not form in isolation and are always the product of ejection. However, the categorization again is fuzzy, with definitional overlap between "planet", "sub-brown-dwarf", and "brown dwarfs" Planets cover spherical objects ranging from 0.001 Jupiter masses to stars at ~80 Jupiter masses. Brown dwarfs range from 3-80 Jupiter masses. Brown Dwarfs are planets and can form outside of an accretion disk. Planets smaller than brown dwarfs are not thought to be able to form outside of accretion disks.
  - jessriedel 2y ago
    > My understanding is that smaller rouge plants do not form in isolation and are always the product of ejection. Wikipedia says "Rogue planets may originate from planetary systems in which they are formed and later ejected, or they can also form on their own, outside a planetary system."
    - goodcanadian 2y ago
      The ones "forming on their own" would be essentially brown dwarfs. As myself and others have said, the line is fuzzy. However, to form on their own there needs to be sufficient density for them to coalesce. It is not a hard limit, but tends to mean only objects larger than about 10 Jupiter masses.
      - jessriedel 2y ago
        No. That’s not what wikipedia says, and I feel confident asserting that an Earth-mass object forming on its own would not be considered a brown dwarf by the vast majority of astronomers. (Maybe it would also not be considered a “planet”, due to some Pluto-adjacent technicalities, but then what do people call it? I’m betting they use “rogue planet” in practice.)
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I think you are missing the size distinction and range for rogue planets, which I specifically highlight. Claims about self formation pertain to rouge planets as a class, which includes brown dwarfs. That does not mean an earth mass object IS a brown dwarf. If you want to want to focus on Wikipedia text, it also says: >Pre-JWST observations have shown that objects below 3-5 MJ are unlikely to form on their own.[4] Observations in 2023 in the Trapezium Cluster with JWST have shown that objects as massive as 0.6 MJ might form on their own, not requiring a steep cut-off mass[1] Those limits are ~1,000 earth masses and ~200 earth masses, respectively https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet#Formation_like_a_star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet#Formation_like_a_...
        2y ago
jessriedel 2y ago
> The definition is that a brown dwarf forms like a star through gravitational collapse within a protostellar nebula Do you have a cite on that? (It conflicts with Wikipedia, for example.) In particular, I suspect that many people read something that describes how a certain type of star is thought to typically form and then interpret that as a definition.
- goodcanadian 2y ago
  Do you have a cite on that? Off the top of my head, no, but I do have a degree in astronomy and an interest going back to childhood.
  - jessriedel 2y ago
    shrug I have a degree in physics and have always heard people define brown dwarfs by size (and occasionally composition) rather than formation mechanism.

munk-a 2y ago

Does this also hold for rogue planets? I was under the impression that some rogue planets could form outside of any star's accretion disk.

dylan604 2y ago
But they did form in some star's accretion disc, just not the one they are roguing their way through. In theory, Jupiter could have caused a planet to go rogue when it made it's way to the inner solar system.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
My understanding is that smaller rouge plants do not form in isolation and are always the product of ejection. However, the categorization again is fuzzy, with definitional overlap between "planet", "sub-brown-dwarf", and "brown dwarfs" Planets cover spherical objects ranging from 0.001 Jupiter masses to stars at ~80 Jupiter masses. Brown dwarfs range from 3-80 Jupiter masses. Brown Dwarfs are planets and can form outside of an accretion disk. Planets smaller than brown dwarfs are not thought to be able to form outside of accretion disks.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  > My understanding is that smaller rouge plants do not form in isolation and are always the product of ejection. Wikipedia says "Rogue planets may originate from planetary systems in which they are formed and later ejected, or they can also form on their own, outside a planetary system."
  - goodcanadian 2y ago
    The ones "forming on their own" would be essentially brown dwarfs. As myself and others have said, the line is fuzzy. However, to form on their own there needs to be sufficient density for them to coalesce. It is not a hard limit, but tends to mean only objects larger than about 10 Jupiter masses.
    - jessriedel 2y ago
      No. That’s not what wikipedia says, and I feel confident asserting that an Earth-mass object forming on its own would not be considered a brown dwarf by the vast majority of astronomers. (Maybe it would also not be considered a “planet”, due to some Pluto-adjacent technicalities, but then what do people call it? I’m betting they use “rogue planet” in practice.)
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I think you are missing the size distinction and range for rogue planets, which I specifically highlight. Claims about self formation pertain to rouge planets as a class, which includes brown dwarfs. That does not mean an earth mass object IS a brown dwarf. If you want to want to focus on Wikipedia text, it also says: >Pre-JWST observations have shown that objects below 3-5 MJ are unlikely to form on their own.[4] Observations in 2023 in the Trapezium Cluster with JWST have shown that objects as massive as 0.6 MJ might form on their own, not requiring a steep cut-off mass[1] Those limits are ~1,000 earth masses and ~200 earth masses, respectively https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet#Formation_like_a_star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet#Formation_like_a_...
      - 2y ago

jessriedel 2y ago

> The definition is that a brown dwarf forms like a star through gravitational collapse within a protostellar nebula Do you have a cite on that? (It conflicts with Wikipedia, for example.) In particular, I suspect that many people read something that describes how a certain type of star is thought to typically form and then interpret that as a definition.

goodcanadian 2y ago
Do you have a cite on that? Off the top of my head, no, but I do have a degree in astronomy and an interest going back to childhood.
- jessriedel 2y ago
  shrug I have a degree in physics and have always heard people define brown dwarfs by size (and occasionally composition) rather than formation mechanism.