Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1,200 and Counting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1,200 and Counting

    Astronomers have cracked the Milky Way like a piñata, and planets are now pouring out so fast that they do not know what to do with them all.

    In a long-awaited announcement, scientists operating NASA’s Kepler planet-hunting satellite reported on Wednesday that they had identified 1,235 possible planets orbiting other stars, potentially tripling the number of known planets.

    Of the new candidates, 68 are one and a quarter times the size of the Earth or smaller — smaller, that is, than any previously discovered planets outside the solar system, which are known as exoplanets. Fifty-four of the possible exoplanets are in the so-called habitable zones of stars dimmer and cooler than the Sun, where temperatures should be moderate enough for liquid water.

    Astronomers said that it would take years to confirm that all of these candidates were really planets — by using ground-based telescopes to measure their masses, for example, or inspecting them to see if background stars are causing optical mischief. Many of them might never be vetted because of the dimness of their stars and the lack of telescope time and astronomers to do it all. But statistical tests of a sample suggest that 80 to 95 percent of the objects on it are real, as opposed to blips in the data.

    “It boggles the mind,” said the Kepler team’s leader, William Borucki, of the Ames Research Center in Northern California.

    At first glance, not one of them appears to be another Earth, the kind of cosmic Eden fit for life as we know it, but the new results represent only four months’ worth of data on a three-and-a-half-year project, and have left astronomers optimistic that they will eventually find Earth-like planets.

    “For the first time in human history, we have a pool of potentially rocky habitable-zone planets,” said Sara Seager of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who works with Kepler. “This is the first big step forward to answering the ancient question, ‘How common are other Earths?’ ”

    At a news conference at NASA headquarters in Washington on Wednesday, Mr. Borucki noted that the Kepler telescope surveys only one four-hundredth of the sky. If it could see the whole sky, he said, “we would see 400,000 candidates.” He is the lead author of a paper describing the new results that has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal.

    In a separate announcement, to be published in the journal Nature on Thursday, a group of Kepler astronomers led by Jack Lissauer of Ames said it had found a star with six planets — the most Kepler has yet discovered around one star — orbiting in close ranks in the same plane, no farther from their star than Mercury is from the Sun.

    This dense packing, Dr. Lissauer said, seems to violate all the rules astronomers have begun to discern about how planetary systems form and evolve.
    “This is sending me back to the drawing board,” he said.

    Summarizing the news from the cosmos, Geoffrey W. Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley, a veteran exoplanet hunter and a mainstay of the Kepler work, said, “There are so many messages here that it’s hard to know where to begin.”

    He called the Borucki team’s announcement “an extraordinary planet windfall, a moment that will be written in textbooks. It will be thought of as watershed.”

    Debra Fischer, an astronomer at Yale who is not part of the Kepler team, said, “This is an amazing era of discovery for astronomy.” Kepler, she added, had “blown the lid off everything we thought we knew about exoplanets.”

    Favorite line:

    Mr. Borucki said the growing number of small planets revealed by Kepler was a welcome change from the early days of exoplanet research, when most of the planets discovered were Jupiter-size giants hugging their stars in close orbits, leading theorists to speculate that smaller planets might be thrown outward from their stars by gravitational forces or dragged right into those suns.

    Due to technological limitations, we spun a theory that we were truly unique, the only planet in the Universe capable of life. Wow, that's what I call Hubble Hubris ....




  • #2
    Re: 1,200 and Counting

    Originally posted by don View Post
    Due to technological limitations, we spun a theory that we were truly unique, the only planet in the Universe capable of life. Wow, that's what I call Hubble Hubris ....

    ...
    I've never heard of that theory, I will confess. Years ago a fellow I worked with had a large poster of the Milky Way on the wall of his office. He had stuck on it a small yellow sticky note with a little arrow pointing to a faint spec in the middle of the mass of stars with the comment "You are here"...

    One of my overseas ventures has taken me several times to the remote regions of the Central Asian steppes. At night, far from light pollution from any population centre, the number of stars one can see with the naked eye is breathtaking. At times like that I always find it difficult to believe we are alone...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 1,200 and Counting

      Ah ah! but the next step is to get control of gravity and start the long haul out to the distant stars.

      http://www.jstor.org/pss/1575232

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1,200 and Counting

        The significance and not the amount of life in the universe is to me the real question. Does organic life serve a purpose as say photosynthesis does? Or gravitational pull? is EVERYTHING in the universe there for a reason?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1,200 and Counting

          Originally posted by GRG55
          I've never heard of that theory, I will confess. Years ago a fellow I worked with had a large poster of the Milky Way on the wall of his office. He had stuck on it a small yellow sticky note with a little arrow pointing to a faint spec in the middle of the mass of stars with the comment "You are here"...
          This concept was popularized as the Drake equation: i.e. if there are other intelligences and a reasonable number of inhabitable planets, it would take mere tens or hundreds of thousands of year for a single intelligent species with only light speed level travel to fill up the entire galaxy.

          Ditto the SETI project has been trying in vain to discern non-background (i.e. intelligence derived) signals from space.

          The numbers above really don't mean anything - what matters is the ratio.

          If 1 million stars were surveyed and 1,200 planets found, also assuming the method used is reasonably likely to find any given planet (10% or more), then galactic space is simply filled mostly with completely uninhabitable star systems without planets.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1,200 and Counting

            Originally posted by c1ue View Post
            This concept was popularized as the Drake equation: i.e. if there are other intelligences and a reasonable number of inhabitable planets, it would take mere tens or hundreds of thousands of year for a single intelligent species with only light speed level travel to fill up the entire galaxy.

            Ditto the SETI project has been trying in vain to discern non-background (i.e. intelligence derived) signals from space.

            The numbers above really don't mean anything - what matters is the ratio.

            If 1 million stars were surveyed and 1,200 planets found, also assuming the method used is reasonably likely to find any given planet (10% or more), then galactic space is simply filled mostly with completely uninhabitable star systems without planets.

            c1ue - this seems very confused to me. The Drake equation has nothing to do with intelligent species traveling to "fill up the entire galaxy". The Drake equation simply lists all the variables at play, in estimating how many stars in the galaxy might harbor intelligent life, which we might be able to communicate with, e.g., hear a signal.

            The fact that such theoretical civilizations have NOT (apparently) spread throughout the galaxy, since there's no good evidence that they are near us, leads the cynic to respond: if they exist, where are they?

            To which the answer comes, they wouldn't choose to travel, silly, because attaining light speed is impractical. But they might well try to communicate.

            SETI's failure to date to hear them doesn't settle the issue either. The "aliens" could be using non-radio frequencies, or else they aren't targeting us yet (because our TV signals haven't reached them to alert them of our existence). Or else they just don't find it interesting enough to waste time and energy on.

            Regardless of all that, when Drake wrote his equation, the number of known extrasolar planets was zero, and he was widely ridiculed.

            You are right about the ratio being the important thing. And Kepler hasn't been operating long enough yet to generate good statistics about the prevalence, size, and characteristics of planets around other stars. Part of the problem is that it CAN'T see planets that do not happen to pass directly in front of ("transit") their star, as seen from our vantage point. In other words, the "plane" of their planetary system has to be "edge-on" towards our line of sight. Geometrically, this is relatively rare. The other part of the problem is, Kepler needs each planet to be detected three times to be confirmed - and for a planet like Earth, that would take three years. So if Kepler continues to operate for another 2 or more years, it will begin to really nail down how many stars have planets, and how many of those are in the habitable zone.

            Still, at this point, I'd say the numbers are very encouraging. Kepler monitors 156,000 stars (not a million). Yesterday they announced 1,200 "candidate planets" identified so far. That number will continue to grow, as will the "confirmed" planets (3 or more transits). Given the fact we are only one year in -- plus the fact that systems that aren't edge-on will never show transits -- then the fact that nearly 1% of stars ALREADY have detected candidates, all suggests that the percentage of stars with planets is probably around 90+% (consistent with prevailing theory) -- and the number in the habitable zone is probably very significant.
            Last edited by peakishmael; February 03, 2011, 04:32 PM. Reason: clarity

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 1,200 and Counting

              Originally posted by peakishmael View Post
              To which the answer comes, they wouldn't choose to travel, silly, because attaining light speed is impractical.
              For the sake of clarity, there is a very detailed proposal in existence that explains that the speed of light appears to be fixed simply because of the mechanism of the generation of the photon. Moreover, that the author has reason to believe, (based upon his explanation of what causes the speed of light to appear to be fixed), that it ought to be very possible to travel faster than the observed speed of light.

              But no one will publicise the book, nor review it, so the matter lays in abeyance for the time being.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1,200 and Counting

                Originally posted by peakishmael
                c1ue - this seems very confused to me. The Drake equation has nothing to do with intelligent species traveling to "fill up the entire galaxy". The Drake equation simply lists all the variables at play, in estimating how many stars in the galaxy might harbor intelligent life, which we might be able to communicate with, e.g., hear a signal.
                You are correct in that the Drake equation is itself only intended to calculate the odds of intelligent life occurring.

                However, the immediate corollary is what I wrote above: even if any given intelligent civilization chooses not to travel, all it would require is one that is, and does.

                At that point the galaxy gets filled pretty darned quick unless there are other issues.

                A lack of habitable planets would be a big one.

                As for Kepler - your points are quite valid. From my view, the numbers actually are very discouraging: if in fact only a small fraction of stars have any planets, the likelihood of finding another inhabitable planet is likely much, much smaller.

                Besides the existence of planets, you then have the star's lifetime issue (hotter stars just don't stick around that long). After the star's lifetime issue, you have the planet type issue (gas planet a la Jupiter/Saturn as opposed to a rocky planet like our own Earth). After that in quick succession you have the water zone issue, the planetary composition issue, the existence of life already on the planet and its chemistry, etc etc.

                It is of course impossible to calculate these odds, but certainly each one reduces the chances of another Earth-type habitable planet significantly.

                Of course there is then always some other type of chemistry not carbon/oxygen related, but again almost completely unknowable beyond some theoretical energy lifecycle chains.

                Originally posted by peakishmael
                SETI's failure to date to hear them doesn't settle the issue either. The "aliens" could be using non-radio frequencies, or else they aren't targeting us yet (because our TV signals haven't reached them to alert them of our existence). Or else they just don't find it interesting enough to waste time and energy on.
                Radio exists for a reason - it is relatively easy to generate and can travel significant distance and penetrate most ordinary above ground structures.

                To postulate some other communication vehicle besides radio you'd have to explain why any civilization would go through with far more expensive and complicated means. Light communications requires a distribution medium - i.e. optic cables. Sound doesn't travel far and is quite intrusive. Theoretically a ground wave, i.e. a vibration in the earth, could do something similar, but would require much greater energy as well as filtering on the other end.

                A far more likely reason(s) why SETI is unsuccessful would be:

                1) Distance. If we have trouble getting cellular signals from 100 miles away, just how tough is it to hear anything from 1000000000 miles? SETI is attempting to hear someone shouting in New York while in Delhi, a non trivial task

                2) Lack of transmitters. No transmitters, nothing to detect.

                The communications protocol is much less of an issue. Again, while it is theoretically possible to create radio signals which are completely random, in reality radio signals always reside on top of regular waves. Digital-ization in particular introduces extremely regular signal types.

                Originally posted by Chris Coles
                For the sake of clarity, there is a very detailed proposal in existence that explains that the speed of light appears to be fixed simply because of the mechanism of the generation of the photon. Moreover, that the author has reason to believe, (based upon his explanation of what causes the speed of light to appear to be fixed), that it ought to be very possible to travel faster than the observed speed of light.

                But no one will publicise the book, nor review it, so the matter lays in abeyance for the time being.
                While there are lots of theories about the ability to transcend the speed of light, it is still unclear that even if the theoretical means exists, that the practice means can be built.

                Energy considerations are massive, and acceleration to/from light speed would be a monstrous task.

                Equally so travelling even close to light speed is a terrifying endeavor. A single ion of argon in space would act like a hyperkinetic projectile and pass entirely through a 0.9c travelling ship, causing all sorts of lovely fission/fusion reactions with bits of the ship in the process.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1,200 and Counting

                  Not only are the distances daunting but I think it was Arthur Clarke who postulated that civilizations likely have finite life-spans. Our current civilization on earth is 6,000 years old and we have no other samples so we really have no idea of an average lifespan of a civilization; but I think he used 40,000 years. Given that the age of both the universe and Milky Way is around 14 billion years old, the likelihood of two space traveling civilizations matching a 40,000 year period in a total time frame of 14 billion years (and increasing) makes the odds of meeting life even more infinitesimal.


                  If there is technologically advanced life out there, not only is it really far away but likely long extinct or so far out in the future that we will be extinct.
                  Greg

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1,200 and Counting

                    All we can hope for in the end is to add to our knowledge and comprehension, some of which is most likely beyond our means of comprehending. Time being perhaps the most difficult. We're bound to our rock of Earthly reference.

                    Like taking a dog for a car ride. He digs it, he can't wait. The chances of him ever understanding the combustion engine is zero. Nevertheless, he prefers to ride with the window down.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 1,200 and Counting

                      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                      As for Kepler - your points are quite valid. From my view, the numbers actually are very discouraging: if in fact only a small fraction of stars have any planets, the likelihood of finding another inhabitable planet is likely much, much smaller.

                      Radio exists for a reason - it is relatively easy to generate and can travel significant distance and penetrate most ordinary above ground structures.

                      .......

                      To postulate some other communication vehicle besides radio you'd have to explain why any civilization would go through with far more expensive and complicated means. Light communications requires a distribution medium - i.e. optic cables.
                      I agree with most of your points c1ue, but I find the numbers much more encouraging than you. Not that it makes a huge difference in my life. Those who talk about whether we are "alone" or not, apparently haven't looked around this planet much. No, we're not alone. I'm pretty sure that life elsewhere in the universe will be confirmed in the next few decades, unless TSHTF totally. If we ever do find intelligent life, it will be a helluva day, but I'll still face the same people in my life on the day after.

                      As far as radio vs. other means of communication, you may be unaware that there are arguments for conducting SETI searches at visible wavelengths. It wouldn't require "optic cables" (???) to send a message. It would require powerful lasers. In fact, optical (visible-wavelength) communications (space-to-ground) is already in use by orbital spacecraft firing lasers, and will soon be demonstrated from a spacecraft orbiting the moon. And hopefully, eventually, from Mars. The boost in bandwidth, and REDUCED power requirement, makes it very attractive, thus the technology is progressing. http://lasers.jpl.nasa.gov/
                      Last edited by peakishmael; February 03, 2011, 10:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1,200 and Counting

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        As far as radio vs. other means of communication, you may be unaware that there are arguments for conducting SETI searches at visible wavelengths. It wouldn't require "optic cables" (???) to send a message. It would require powerful lasers. In fact, optical (visible-wavelength) communications (space-to-ground) is already in use by orbital spacecraft firing lasers, and will soon be demonstrated from a spacecraft orbiting the moon. And hopefully, eventually, from Mars. The boost in bandwidth makes it very attractive, thus the technology is progressing. http://lasers.jpl.nasa.gov/
                        It is a fair point that a sufficiently power laser can also communicate. But again, a laser requires aim - modern cellular systems for example actually have thousands of mini antenna that 'aim' a cellular signal to specific cell phones (which is why I can track anyone's cell phone).

                        While this type of approach theoretically can apply to a coherent light signal, again this is a quantum leap in terms of complexity even disregarding the difficulties of using light in an atmosphere (space much less of an issue, though aim is actually a larger problem).

                        If alien intelligences were aiming a message laser, nonetheless the strength of laser required would still be astronomical, not to mention the number of lasers necessary to reach a significant fraction of surrounding star systems.

                        Bottom line: I don't think the SETI concept is bad - any intelligent signal should display some regularity. I just don't know if such are detectable even if such signals exist due to the tremendously large amounts involved - both time and space.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1,200 and Counting

                          The exchange underway on this thread is one of the reasons I love this place. Perhaps not directly macro-economic related, but enormously interesting...my appreciation to all above who have taken time to contribute!

                          Picking up on Biscayne Sunrise's post, if our organised "civilization" is approximately 6000 years old, it occurs that it has been only a tiny slice of our existence - a handful of decades, at best - that we have had the means to attempt to communicate beyond our planet, or listen for evidence of others. It seems premature, and perhaps even smacking a bit of hubris, to conclude that there is little possibility of life anywhere else in the Universe.


                          peakishmael posted: "...SETI's failure to date to hear them doesn't settle the issue either. The "aliens" could be using non-radio frequencies, or else they aren't targeting us yet (because our TV signals haven't reached them to alert them of our existence). Or else they just don't find it interesting enough to waste time and energy on..."

                          What if "they" were using radio frequencies and targeting us 200 years ago? What could they have heard? What would we have heard?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1,200 and Counting

                            Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                            While there are lots of theories about the ability to transcend the speed of light, it is still unclear that even if the theoretical means exists, that the practice means can be built.

                            Energy considerations are massive, and acceleration to/from light speed would be a monstrous task.

                            Equally so travelling even close to light speed is a terrifying endeavor. A single ion of argon in space would act like a hyperkinetic projectile and pass entirely through a 0.9c travelling ship, causing all sorts of lovely fission/fusion reactions with bits of the ship in the process.
                            Again, for clarity, your answer sits upon an understanding of the physics that is embedded in thinking that is more than a Century old. But now I know I am being a little unfair, as a full answer is going to have to wait for the next few chapters.....

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1,200 and Counting

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              It is a fair point that a sufficiently power laser can also communicate. But again, a laser requires aim - modern cellular systems for example actually have thousands of mini antenna that 'aim' a cellular signal to specific cell phones (which is why I can track anyone's cell phone).
                              Now this I will answer today. One of those wonderful misunderstandings about cellular communication is that the system "steers" the signal to you. It does not. The system in fact sends the signal to every antenna, but it is only the signal that has precisely your encoding address that your receiver, held in your hand, responds to. At that point, your receiver then responds to the system and at that point, the system can define where you are from the location of the antenna that received the response. As a glider pilot, we all learn very early on that we are not encouraged to turn on a cellular telephone when we are in the air as we then flood the entire region with our seeking response and perhaps a thousand cellular towers each receive the hand held's signal..........

                              The only reason you, as the owner of a cellular telephone, receive any message specific to your account is because your telephone has a very specific account number and the signal to you carries that account code. In fact, it is possible to listen in on any cellular phone call from any location if you have access to the specific code. But the powers that be do not want you to know that, for obvious reasons.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X