Talk:Tau Ceti

Tau Ceti is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2011.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 16, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 5, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 8, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Archives

Archive 1

Unlike other prominent stars, Tau Ceti does not have a widely recognized traditional name...[edit]

...Would it be fair to say that Tau Ceti has itself become a widely recognized traditional name? It's been used in enough fictional back stories now (e.g., War of the Worlds (2005 film)) that it's probably the most famous star out there now after Barnard's Star and the Alpha Centauri system.

Are there even other names for it? Mark Stimmel (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually find a ref that mentions Tau Ceti in regards to the 2005 film but I'm almost certain I read as much. Does anyone have a Spielberg quote handy? Mark Stimmel (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "traditional name", the article means a proper name for the star, as with Sirius or Betelgeuse. I think Tau Ceti is considered a catalogue designation.—RJH (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJ -- good to see you typing. I wonder about Chinese/Eastern names? Presumably it had gotten attention from the other side of the world. See Tao. Mark Stimmel (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God. They've arrived. Thankfully Wikipedia no longer allows us to link to the examiner dot com. But do a Google search. Mark Stimmel (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see some Chinese nomenclature has already been added. RJ, an astro-historical question for you: do you think it's possible that something resembling a telescope was invented 5,000 or 50,000 rather than 500 years ago? -- User:Marskell

Conceivably. The nimrud lens is 3,000 years old. The Ancient Greeks were aware of the pinhole lens ~400 BC. But this is perhaps getting a bit off topic.—RJH (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not entirely. Much is in a name. "Tau" is the prefix for many star names and is a homophone with an entire eastern religious movement. Anyway, good seeing you around. -- User:Marskell

"In fiction" is just trivia.[edit]

This recently added section is unsourced and appears to be composed of trivia. The topic of Tau Ceti in fiction is already an article, which is also unsourced and full of trivia. As the star and science fiction appear to be the only common themes, I think the subject can be summarized in a single sentence and the content of the section can be moved to the other article with little impact here. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life[edit]

It has asteroids and comets nearby,so a habitable planet may be bombarded by asteroids and comets. --Alexrybak (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true of the Earth as well.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point the poster was making was, if there is a planet in the "habitable zone," a bombardment of other bodies could bring the organic molecules that hypothetically could 'spark' life to develop. 104.169.35.251 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planets-discovery[edit]

News in France emerging about discovery of 5 planets, including one in habitable zone. News well sourced, with couple of scientists involved being quoted, and name of Journal given in the news source that will publish the discovery.--Exsaol (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add this info to the later sections of the article, which now contradict the lede. this will take some work. also, i placed a new ref in english. this is better, though if someone feels also having a french language ref here is good, they can add it back. very exciting. I anticipate they will each get their own article, or at least the goldilocks planet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hectoseconds?[edit]

What's a more meaningful unit in common usage? Saying "x hs of observation" isn't very informative and should have a parenthetical reference in commonly used time units. 69.243.13.102 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Durre menthor?[edit]

Sounds like another Richontaban fake star name flying around!! Verification please. Dead links won't suffice! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird-looking name. Most pages that contain that name and are high on the Google ranking are references of fiction or Wikipedia mirrors. There are, however, this and notably this, "Patrick Moore's Data Book of Astronomy and this book that include it as an alternative name. So, it actually appears to be true! --JorisvS (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, those sources are not independent or authoritative -- they have probably picked up and perpetuated Wikipedia hoaxes (the Moore so-called Data Book is a known offender in this regard). I agree with Rursus that it looks like one of the fake names we have weeded out in the past. I am removing it unless some authoritative source can be found. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Looking back through the changelog, I see that the name was introduced in 2006 October by an anonymous user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/168.223.11.198 who had not edited before, but who went on to tinker with other star name data. So, yes, I think a hoaxer. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same author made some changes to the List of stars in Cetus article,[1] some of which were still in place. I could not confirm them, so I pulled them out. Those constellation lists are poorly sourced and often in error. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Well spotted. I agree with your changes. Incidentally, the IP prefix 168.223.11 is the same as that used by the troll Richontaban, as mentioned by Rursus above.Skeptic2 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it should be kept in the lead like that, though. --JorisvS (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six planets in a five planet system?[edit]

An anonymous editor added data for a sixth planet to a system in which there are five suspected planets. Can the data be reconciled? Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to remediate the issue by merging candidate planets f & g, which were linked to the same page. Praemonitus (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 6 data supported a five planet system with either 168 or 315 days period for the 4th planet, but not both. The 168 days period was computed to be more likely. The wide gap between 168 and 630 days suggests either a small planet that was not ruled out, or more likely an asteroid belt with substantial fragments in asymmetrical distribution that the reference did not discuss. The reference made serious effort to include a small planet at 315 day period, but failed on two accounts. First the 6 planet model found a 1300 day period and a 168 day period, but the 315 day period was absent. Second the stability calculations showed that 168 days and 315 days periods would interfere with each other, tending to prevent the smaller mass from forming a conventional planet. The reference did not rule out the possibility of smaller planets in the system.

The study of 315 days period is important in that it resides in the middle of the habitable zone. It would be a monumental finding if an earth like planet of less than 2 earth masses could be found there. The researchers tried hard to find a habitable planet at 315 day period, but they were careful to avoid mistakes. The data did not support a 315 day period for a major planet. Astrojed (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tau Ceti. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New RV measurement[edit]

At phys.org, at arXiv. 4 planets are confirmed. --mfb (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the study confirms e & f, finds g & h, and refutes b, c, d. I think we should update the article with the new data and flag the first three as "probably disproven". Frankly, at this point, all I'd be willing to put money on is that there is a planetary system. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like e and f are clearly confirmed, but I'm not sure what is going on closer to the star. --mfb (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make it more clear and in subsequent exoplanet discoveries, the method of detection, whether radial velocity or transit? This will help clarify the resulting data for casual readers: i.e., Since transit photometry measurements have yet to be made successfully for Tau Ceti, any actual radii of its exoplanets is a rough estimate. Kortoso (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transit photometry measurements are not likely since TC's relatively low rotational velocity measurements may indicate that Tau Ceti is being viewed from nearly the direction of its pole.Kortoso (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tau Ceti. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral class, G8 vs K1?[edit]

An IP editor is repeatedly changing the article to change the spectral class of Tau Ceti from G8 to K1. The reference we have cited (and my own textbooks) specify G8. Anyone know what's going on here? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. They're practically the same class, but better to stick with the reference. Praemonitus (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at 3RR, and the editor isn't responding to talk page (here or their own), or edit comments. He's also fiddling with K-type main-sequence star and G-type main-sequence star to enforce his changes. I've reported him to WP:ANI/3RR, but not getting any action there (what, do they think it's a weekend or something? :-). Tarl N. (discuss) 01:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I reverted the last, but I'll hold off now until the report is resolved. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, so hopefully they'll notice their talk page when they next try to edit. Thanks, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't work, they could always semi-protect the article for a while. I went looking for a source for the K1 class, but the nearest I found was NSTARS which shows G8.5V.[2] Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their edit history, I found a comment that suggests the editor believes mass and spectral class are directly related by a precise formula. So presumably what we're seeing is WP:OR, and mistaken. The IP has been blocked for a couple of days, which should lead the editor to look at their talk page. Hopefully we'll see a reaction there. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Ceti i[edit]

I wonder if Tau Ceti d or i should be included in the planet box. I know I made the edits, but considering what happened with Proxima d, maybe we should err on the side of caution. TheWhistleGag (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an encyclopedia, I think we should err on the side of caution and mostly stick to reliable, conservative results. A decade from now this may all have changed. Praemonitus (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what's the cite for i? The mass strikes me as incorrect - we're not exactly likely to know an upper limit on the mass. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/tau_cet_i/. It links to the paper already cited since it states that the planet has to be less than 5 M_J. I did some simple math to determine its Earth mass value and its orbital period from its SMA. TheWhistleGag (talk)

While the planet has had an edit war, I have added the ref where i has been possibly discovered and removed any original research. TheWhistleGag (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added research that may support the existence of Tau Ceti i, if only indirectly. It was featured in the news and shows that dry super-Earths tend to have Jovian companions. While it may not be the most fascinating, and it is not a direct confirmation of the planet, I felt it was something just to throw out there. TheWhistleGag (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR, which is not allowed. All it shows is that they may be a giant planet (>0% chance); it does not confirm that the said planet is your component 'i'. Also your Deitrich and Apai (2008) reference does not appear to constitute an independent confirmation, since they are just rehashing the same data. Praemonitus (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not completely original research: it is from a paper that has been peer-reviewed and published in astronomical journals. I understand that the Dietrich reference is rehashing some of the same data, but it does say that its mass would be more equivalent to 1–2 Jupiter masses instead of less than 5. I have erred on the side of caution with adding planet j (and dubious candidate k), but the fact that the analysis detects b and c is somewhat good news. TheWhistleGag (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the paper specifically mentions Tau Ceti i, it is you who is assembling the information in an original way. We're an encyclopedia, not a research group. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will remove the extra citation. TheWhistleGag (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you remove it, just don't use it for OR. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resources[edit]

New paper An Integrated Analysis with Predictions on the Architecture of the τ Ceti Planetary System, Including a Habitable Zone Planet https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.14675.pdf 2600:8804:4904:8A00:4D68:99B3:D01E:254B (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tau Ceit" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Tau Ceit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 4 § Tau Ceit until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections regarding the 2017 paper & its conclusions[edit]

The 2017 paper was not a refinement by the same team which published the candidates in 2012, there are some shared authors but that is the extent of it. Also nowhere does it confirm e and f as any more than candidates, they are merely the only two candidates from the 2012 paper recovered in 2017. Certainly robust candidates but this does not mean confirmed planets. I have updated the table accordingly as well. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 02:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems more specific clarification may be required, this is the 2017 paper I am referring to.

Firstly, the title is "Four Planet Candidates around τ Ceti", note that they do not say "Four planets" or "Two confirmed planets", it is four candidates. Furthermore "we conclude that the signals with periods of 20, 49, 160, and 600 days are genuine Keplerian candidates." (underlining added by me).

For Tau Ceti f specifically: "The determination of the inner boundary of this scattered disc may help to confirm the existence of the 600 days candidate." The paper itself states that it has yet to be confirmed and further study is required.

In addition, a 2021 paper (which refers to tau ceti as HD 10700) does not confirm any of the planetary candidates, despite the fact that simulated planets were detected: "As this star does not show any significant planetary signal, we also injected a fake planetary signal to demonstrate that YARARA processing was not altering planetary signals."

The candidates remain unconfirmed by scientific literature, which is to be regarded as more authoritative than planetary databases, even from NASA. It is not original research to consider scientific consensus. Xiphosura^Talk∞Edits 03:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about that myself. Those databases can list planets as confirmed even when there is no independent confirmation published. I just assumed it was done via private communication. Praemonitus (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]