Slashdot Mirror


Alien Atmosphere Hubbled

b-side.org writes "Yahoo! News has a story on yon giant hubble mirrorscope thingy locating an alien, mostly sodium, atmosphere. X10.com popunder ads also included free of charge." Mm....let's mix that atmosphere with water. T cuts in: This turns out to be the major discovery hinted at a few days ago.

26 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Drake Equation by gandalf_grey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What effects have the recent (relatively) discoveries of extra-solar planets, and now atmospheres, done to change the results that one can get from the drake equation?

    Obviously, it's still highly contraversial. However, now that it seems very likely that there are thousands, millions and billions of planets out there everywhere... we must assume many earth like planets as well, IMHO.

    Anyone care to submit their suggestions as to the number of (potentially) intelligent civilizations lurking around?

    --
    Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
    1. Re:Drake Equation by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny
      It turns out most planets are Jovian, no solid ground means no life (intelligent anyway).


      Let's not be too hasty in discounting life there; perhaps life could have evolved in the form of giant alien gasbags.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Drake Equation by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 4, Informative

      what has it been restricted to? the outer ring because of the lower amount of radiation?

      1) we have only found mant Jovian planets because our technology make them easiest to find and Terran type planets would have to be implyed in minuet almost imperceptable shifts in the angle of light coming from the Jovian planet as the terren planet passes it in orbit.

      2) Moons around Jovian planets may also house life....moons tend to be made of Rock and most Jovian planets found have been 10-50 times the size of Jupider so those size plantes could easily house an earth sized moon.

      3) the Universe is a huge undefinable place.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:Drake Equation by mcpkaaos · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seven!

      Wait, no, sorry, I counted ours.

      Six!

      --------
      [McP]KAAOS

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    4. Re:Drake Equation by markmoss · · Score: 3, Informative

      There isn't a major effect, because with the instrumentation we have, all we can see is planets as big as Jupiter or bigger, and usually in orbits closer to the sun than Venus. So we're only able to see uninhabitable planets in solar systems rather unlike ours, and this doesn't say much about the prevalence of solar systems like ours.

      It does finally settle one 300-year old astronomical debate: whether planet formation happens in freak accidents such as near-collisions between stars, or as a normal part of star formation. Astronomers strongly leaned towards the latter hypothesis, because calculations and computer simulations don't show the near-collision scenario as leaving planets in stable orbits, while it is fairly easy to get a star with planets to condense from a simulated gas & dust cloud. Now that we know lots of stars do have some sort of planet, freak accident theories are definitely ruled out.

    5. Re:Drake Equation by LMCBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "the Drake equation gives us NO new information about the statistics of life"

      This is true, but it's not the point of the Drake equation. Frank Drake came up with it back before he founded SETI, as a way to speculate quantitatively about the possibility of life elsewhere. It's utility is that it separates the unknown factors regarding life in our Galaxy, so that the mind can deal with each independently. I mean, think about it:

      Conversation about life in the universe, pre-Drake equation:

      "How many civilizations do you think there are in our Galaxy?"
      "I have no idea."
      "Heavy."
      "Yeah."

      Same conversation, armed with DE:

      "How many civilizations do you think there are in our Galaxy?"
      "Who knows? But there are billions of stars, and I think about half probably have a planetary system of some kind."
      "Yeah, but how many of those could support life? Even in our system, apparently only 1 of 9."
      "OK, so let's go with that, for now. But how many of the life-bearing planets would evolve intelligent life?...."

      and so on. The Drake Equation provides a framework for speculation about The Big Question: Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?. It was whimsically conceived, and it was not meant to provide new information about the question.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  2. wtf? by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Could you possibly have chosen a more incoherent and factually incorrect submission for posting? The atmosphere is not mostly sodium as "b-side.org" seemingly just guessed. The reason sodium was measured is because it is relatively easy to detect. NASA has a more informative story.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    1. Re:wtf? by Incongruity · · Score: 4, Funny
      LOL! I'm with you, deglr6328.

      I also loved the "photo" that is included along with the Yahoo! news story...it's an "artist's impression" of the distant planet. Oh but it gets better... below the 'photos' section there's a 'audio/video' link to an AP story entitled "Chemicals Found on Faraway Planet ".

      In all seriousness, this discovery is really interesting, at least to me. Then again, every time the Hubble is used in something new, I am impressed considering its rocky beginings and the amazing in-orbit mirror replacement that had to be done just to get it working. All that aside, the story that this submission is linked to makes me cringe.

      Call it geek ellitism if you must but it just seems like such a dumbed-down treatment of the story in some ways. Most of the content is really cool, but the headlines/bold-points (like "INHOSPITABLE, BUT STILL BREAKTHROUGH") and the extra stuff (as mentioned before) are laughable. Am I wrong or is this a little...well...lite?

      I'm really not trying to troll; the point seemed worth mentioning/discussing.

    2. Re:wtf? by cperciva · · Score: 4, Informative

      Reuters are idiots. From the NASA press release:
      The astronomers actually saw less sodium than predicted for the Jupiter-class planet

  3. A sodium atmosphear?? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 3, Funny

    Guess we could not colonize this planet since our people would be dead from Heart attacks and Hypertention in about 2 weeks ;-)

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    1. Re:A sodium atmosphear?? by TandyMasterControl · · Score: 5, Funny
      We can also safely eliminate Planet HD234562345 as the long sought lair of Pulvetton's Giant Space Slug.

      --
      Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
  4. And so let us remember... by blamanj · · Score: 3

    Sir Humphrey Davy,
    Abominated gravy,
    He lived in the odium,
    Of having discovered Sodium

    -- Edmund Clerihew Bentley

  5. Another article for this news by headkase · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wired also has a story on this article here.

    --
    Shh.
  6. Any astronomers want to clarify... by AlphaBrav · · Score: 3, Informative
    this?
    They saw sodium in the atmosphere, but actually a bit less than expected for a Jupiter-class planet, which might indicate high-altitude clouds above the alien planet that could have blocked some of the light.

    OK, if they are viewing the star's light through the atmosphere, and using the differrence to detect the composition of the atmosphere, then it's absorption. And anything that would "block" wavelengths, means the absorption would increase, and provide a reading showing that it would have more sodium, not less. Am I wrong? Maybe I am wrong, but the more I think about it, the more I feel the statement above just doesn't add up. Seems this reporter may be the typical reporter reporting on a subject she may not actually comprehend - and she's the one that's supposed to be informing us!
  7. priorities? by belterone · · Score: 4, Funny

    That makes them far too hot for life as we know it. Not only would any hypothetical human traveler to this planet die but the planet's intense heat would quickly melt any coins in the person's pockets, the scientists said. Yeah, that's what I worry about when I'm somewhere where (1) I can't breathe and (2) has winds that can rip me to shreds in seconds and (3) has no solid surface for 100's of miles beneath me... Gaah! My quarters!

    --
    I can't find my car keys. (no a's in email)
  8. Telescopes and spaceships by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's depressing to think that we can see so far, and will be seeing even further soon enough, while travel is still such an impossible thought. I'm no expert, but I'm sure someone here can tell you that it'd take a group of human explorers 50 generations on a spaceship to reach some of the places we can see. Point being, is the future a place where all sorts of alien worlds (including ours) will be staring at eachother through a telescope with no way of meeting?

    Maybe that's for the best though, cause it'd give us a chance to maybe get to know eachother and avoid the possible interplanetary war that might result if we were to just plop down onto someone else's homeworld. Why am I speculating about this as if it were even remotely possible yet? Good question, me. I think I should stop typing now.

    1. Re:Telescopes and spaceships by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 5, Funny

      What if this sort of telescope technology becomes commonplace, and someone uses it to shoot laserpointers at alien worlds? They would be so annoyed that they would hate us forever. We would be doomed.

  9. Re:One more piece of evidence . . . by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 3, Informative
    We are probably surrounded by many planets with an atmosphere.

    We certainly are. The only planets in our own Solar System that lack atmospheres are Mercury and Pluto, assuming you're among those that still count Pluto as a planet and not a gargantuan comet.

    If you mean other planetary systems, then we have no data to say one way or another. We have no techniques for detecting extra-Solar planets smaller than Jupiter.

    If a solar system is capable of having a Jupiter type planet, what about an Earth type planet? It isn't THAT far of a stretch.

    If by "Earth type planet" you mean a relatively small rocky body rather than a gas giant, you're probably right. If you mean a planet capable of supporting life as we know it, then it is a bit of a stretch, at least in the planetary systems we've actually observed. If Jupiter were much closer to the Sun than it is, conditions on Earth would be far different than they are -- that is, if Earth existed at all. It may well be that it was Jupiter's influence that prevented a planet from forming where the asteroid belt is now. The Jupiter-like planets we've seen in other systems are generally far closer to the Sun than Jupiter is. No terrestrial planets are likely to exist inside their orbits. Outside their orbits it would be too cold for liquid water to exist.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  10. More info by anzha · · Score: 3, Informative

    How amusing. I submitted this earlier and got it rejected. oh well.

    This link I was using has a nice story attached. Also for more general info about extra solar planets try Jean Schneider's here or its mirror here.

    I'm getting funky time outs all over the place, so its hard to tell whether or not things are up. Unless you guys have gotten so good at slashdotting a site that you do it BEFORE a site has been posted. ;)

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  11. Transplantable life by stonecoldt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did anyone see the great BBC documentary on exploring/colonizing Mars that was shown over the weekend? Not only was it great to see some nerd candy on TV, but they raised a couple of good points that I think may be relevant to the current discussion.

    The BBC program said that when we finally do colonize mars, we'll probably bring a couple of species with us - mainly some *very* strong strains of plants (wheat i think) that can thrive in the martian soil (when enclosed in a greenhouse of course). And bees - yep, bees, because they're tough, easy to keep, make honey, and can pollinate plants. (I thought it was interesting that they had already scoured the earth for some organisms that they thought could do well there.)

    And also, the documentary said that the answer to the question of whether there is life on Mars may not be known for a long long time because on this planet, life hides in corners of the Earth that you'd never expect, like the antarctic, or inside a bubbling geyser. You'd basically have to dissect all of Mars to be sure it's lifeless.

    So after watching the documentary and then reading this article, I think it's clear that despite this planet's radically different atmosphere, not only *could* life exist there, but that some species from our world and their world may be more transplantable than you'd think.

  12. Re:X10 pop under ads by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 4, Informative

    Teach a man how to opt out of X10 ads and he'll be happy for the rest of the month. Teach a man how to use Mozilla and he'll be happy for the rest of his life.

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
  13. A few things... by joh3n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) The sodium bit: It's not that the planet's atmosphere is mostly sodium, it's just that sodium is rather easy to detect as compared to other elements (we use it to identify stars all the time). Also, given the spectral coverage of STIS (the spectrograph used to make the measurement), Na was probably the only strong line they could go for in one setting.

    2) Why this is a big deal: Yes, we know there are gas giants elsewhere, but that's not the point. It's more of a proof of concept that we can measure the properties of an atmosphere of a planet outside the solar system. Plop a more sensitive instrument up there and you can go for smaller planets....and hopefully find signatures of methane and oxygen...boo-yah.

    3) The unexpected bit (from the astronomers point of view) Hubble found it. Hubble's great and all, but spectra is not it's bread and butter. Most of us in the astro community were betting on Keck to find this first since a 10 meter on the ground with larger spectral coverage kicks the crap out of a 2.5 meter (Hubble)

    --
    -------- The thought plickens....
  14. Nice to see by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nice to see that "Hubbled" is a verb now. We need more verbs.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  15. More info... by csmiller · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sites in Europe or USA, both have a French language version. They have a 26page PDF detailing it.

    --
    It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --- Albert Einstein
  16. Re:Sodium by markmoss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a better article in nytimes.com (registration required). The Hubble's spectrograph is detecting tiny traces of sodium in the planet's atmosphere as it transits between the star (its sun) and us. They set it to look for sodium, because that has the strongest spectrum lines of any element. The article didn't say, but I think these must be absorption lines where the starlight shines through the atmosphere of the planet, around the edges as it transits. I would assume it is ionic sodium -- you just plain don't find sodium in any other form.

    The planet is Jupiter-sized, and close to it's sun, so the atmosphere is hot enough to melt copper. Not a good place to visit... But with the present methods for detecting extra-solar planets, any we can spot will be too big and too hot.

    Mostly, planets are detected because their mass as they orbit makes the star jiggle just a little (the star and the planet orbit the common center of gravity -- which is still somewhere inside the star, but not the exact middle). The stars motion doppler shifts it's light, and so there is a periodic shift in the star's spectrogram. The bigger the planet is and the closer to the star, the more jiggle -- someone in another solar system looking at ours with instruments of similar capability wouldn't detect Earth because it's too small, and might miss Jupiter because it's orbit is too wide and slow.

    This particular planet was detected by a different method; it happens that the planet's orbit causes it to transit between the star and Earth, blocking a small part of the star's light. If the planet is big enough, this drop in the star's intensity is detectable. But such an orbital alignment must be something like a one in a million shot...

  17. no earth-like planets yet by peter303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not because they aren't there, but because they are very hard to detect with current technology (doppler shifts, light curves). The easy planets to find are very large (big doppler shifts) and fast- orbits of months or less.