Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Earth to...Earth? Are you there?

Posted by Hemos on from the are-you-there-god?-it's-me,-margaret dept.

jasamaman writes "So far all the planets found outside our solar system have been gas giants. So they are not habitable, and couldn't really hold life as we know it. But "planet hunter" David Charbonneau is looking for another planet just like Earth, and claims that astronomers are "very close"."

7 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. Still a few years off. by Gopher971 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Until the launch of "Darwin" by the ESA, (pdf link) it is unlikely that we will be able to detect earth-like planets. We still cannot detect Jupiter sized worlds at this point in time.

    --
    Just you're average nitpicker.
  2. Given that Scientists.... by theolein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    have recently determined that amino acids (protein building block molecules) are formed in a vacuum which would perhaps mean that most life would be formed on the same basis as we are, perhaps it would be easier to look for old radio transmissions and TV-signals as SETI does. Have the people at SETI ever done any modelling to see what our old TV-signals would look like 10 light years from earth?

    Another thing that might be vital to life on earth might simply be the fact that we have such a large moon acting as both a shield to a lot of asteroidal bombardment and as a planetary motor for tides ,winds and life in general.

    1. Re:Given that Scientists.... by Silicone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, taken that 10 light years is equal to 94.608e+15 meters (94.608e12 km), then you have a pretty far way to go. The signal transmitted from the distant planet was, let us assume 10 kW, which is a lot. But let us assume they have a foggy atmosphere and need this to get everybody signal (OK, let us assume as well they dont have cable...). They are transmitting isotropically and we have a 40 dB gain antenna looking into the skies (not too shabby). Then the signal power received on earth would be Pr = Pt*Gt*Gr*(Lambda)^2/(4*pi*R)^2. Substituting these, (Pt = 10000, Gt = 1, Gr = 10000, Lambda = 3e8/500e6 assuming a 500MHz transmission, R = the big number), Pt = 2.5470e-029 Watt. You can only detect this kind of power in Startrek Movies...

  3. Re:How dose he know? by Perdo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seems like the technology required to find planets will be in the reach of amateurs soon. So there will be many more "eyes" looking for planets. Or the technology is becoming sufficiently mature that we will be able to detect smaller rocky bodies. Or he is about to launch a distributed computing project to analyze the visible signatures of every visible star for the wobble caused by planet motion.

    Right now, we could not detect our solar systems planets. There are 9 planets exerting their own oscillation into the sun's wobble. Perhaps he cannot do it now, but he knows what it would take to get there. Two years ago we all laughed and joked about IBM's process that would allow 5ghz machines. We all said "whatever, how the hell do they know, vaporware" Now we have seen 5 Ghz machines demonstrated, overclockers are hitting 3 Ghz easily and you should try not to discredit a geek in his field if you are out of yours.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  4. Why only carbon based life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1) We know how carbon based life works and develops. We have plenty of experimental evidence.
    2) We do not know how non-carbon based life works, develops or even if it is possible. We don't have experimental evidence.
    3) Developing a scientific hypothesis requires that you know what you are talking about and have at least some experimental evidence that suggests that we need another hypothesis.

    Hence, we cannot speculate on the non-carbon based life -- at least scientifically.

  5. Re:egotistic... by Fyndo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What else, besides carbon are you going to base life on? Silicon is the only other thing that has a chemistry even a fraction as varied as carbon, but forms oxides too readily. We haven't ever seen large-scale organization of nuclear matter (and have pretty good theoretical arguments, why not), so it seems unlikely that there's life based on anything sub-molecular. Don't see how you'd get a stable plasma-based life form.

    if you have any plausible suggestions, by all means, make them. But till then, the only way I can see to get life is carbon-based life forms. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I'm betting on other life forms also being carbon-based. Not proof, but strikes me as a good bet.

  6. Great, we're cephalopods by BreakWindows · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But the detection of those elusive, small Earth-like worlds may be closer than you think

    I've seen lots of Science Fiction movies about aliens that go from planet to planet, soaking up the natural resources of each, conquering and destroying them (making them uninhabitable), and moving on. Anyone else ever think we're the aliens?

    I mean, we've already screwed up this one, and now rather than fix it (because wanting to do that makes you a "tree hugger") we're going after another. I can't say I'm against it, but it's just...creepy.