Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Discovers a Hundred New Planets
Spudley writes "The BBC is reporting that the Hubble Telescope has discovered over a hundred new exoplanets - a number which almost doubles the total known. Apparently they are also expecting to be able to analyse the atmospheres of up to 20% of them. The discovery will be confirmed within the next seven days."
To see what kind of planets they are, what kind of systems etc. anyone have a link to specific data?
I wonder if SETI will examine these areas more closely.....
If this doubles the number of known planets, does this make Earth half as significant? I mean, is Earth at all significant in the big scheme of things? I am reminded of that picture from Carl Sagan's book showing Earth as a mere speck against the vastness of space. I think the book was called The Pale Blue Dot. Wow, this makes me feel a lot better about forgetting to pay my phone bill.
Unknown host pong.
That I read about recently that predicts the number of planets which are capable of supporting carbon-based life. Does anyone know where I can find it? The guy that came up with it has used his own numbers/functions to predict that there are some 200,000 (maybe more?) planets in our galaxy alone that can support carbon-based life. Of course, this is all hinges on my memory being correct . . . hmmmmm.
Unless this observation was done in a wavelength atenuated by atmosphere (e.g. in near UV), then I don't see why the fate of Hubble is relevant. Ground-based scopes out-power hubble and new scopes that are planned out-power those.
/.) is: should we build it as an orbital device like Hubble, or should we put it on the moon? A moon-based scope has many advantages and disadvantages which should be considered.
Hubble should be replaced at some point. My only question (as asked previously here on
My very educated mother just served us nine pizzas. -- Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off- then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me
Excuse my ignorance, but I didn't know that there were any other know planets outside of are solar system.
Amazing...
Does anyone know:
A) When the first exo-planet was discovered.
B) A good source of of info on this.
Thanks.
The discovery will lend support to the idea that almost every sunlike star in our galaxy, and probably the Universe, is accompanied by planets.
If you've ever read anything about star formation the co-effect of planet formation seems a no-brainer. Just eddies in an accretion disk. It would seem more unlikely to me that an accretion disk would perfectly aggregate into a lone star. In fact, you can apply this to other things, such as ring formation, and more sporadically I would imagine, life. The universe is a BIG place.
This is even beyond Carl Sagan's reasoning of the likleyhood of the existence of life in the Universe. It is hard to imagine the possible abundance of extra terra life, but this theory is reasonable, and this discovery is one step closer to proving it.
I just wish I could be around to witness the presentation of absolute proof that life exists elsewhere in the Universe.
Yep, I teach physics and astronomy at the local community college, and I diffuse such statements at the beginning of each semester. "Are we ever going to use this stuff?" students typically ask physics and math professors at some point during their studies (always at the difficult parts --- no one has objections to learning irrelevant easy stuff). "Nope!" I say, proudly beaming. Teaching astronomy to the general public has no practical value, aside from the (perhaps) 2nd order effect of funding for space missions that help make technological advances. Rather, I hope to teach them how to think critically, expose them to scientific ideas, methods, and principles, and instill some sense of appreciation for the amazing universe we are embedded in. If we stimulate imaginations and a little "shock and awe" at ideas not yet imagined, hopefully that is some slight public service. This is especially important for children, whose romantically large sense of wonder should be occasionally inflated. As Feynman said, "science is like sex; occasionally something practical comes out of it, but that's not the reason we're doing it."
The abilities of Hubble don't really lie in it's sheer imaging abilities but rather its vantage point. Being out of the Earth's atmosphere has quite a bit of an advantage over terrestrial telescopes because of less atmospheric distortion. That said, the Hubble does need to be replaced...and hopefully BEFORE Hubble is rendered useless.
Consider all the facts before you push Congress to throw away billions of taxdollars at the project.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
While the BBC News headline is as gung-ho as Slashdot's uncritical echo, the first paragraph contains the key word 'may' ("may have discovered..."), and even the lead scientist admits that some of the planets may not be confirmed.
The BBC article also notes that confirmation may not come "until Fall", not in 'seven days' as you have.
This smells more like a press release than meaningful, peer-reviewed astronomy to me. I suspect it's a piece of "hey, let's keep Hubble" propaganda.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
It's all about what looks good on TV - a man on the moon is more tangible.
I hate to say it, but ...Hubble is just a telescope. There... I said it. It's only real advantages over ground based telescopes are its position above the atmosphere, and greater sky viewing range.
A base on the moon would have HUGE advantages over Hubble. With no atmosphere, and better accessability for repairs and upgrades, a moon based telescope would be a far greater asset then Hubble. I'm also sure there are many other research possiblites a new environment like this will provide.
How many stars did they have to look at to find 100 planets passing in front of 100 stars?
Think about it. Just between the Earth and the Sun, Venus only passes between our line of sight with the sun twice every hundred years (isn't that the correct figure)? I mean, it passes by in inner orbit, but it only actually eclipses the sun twice in that period. The rest of the time, it's either above or below the sun.
Now, with Venus, we're in fairly similar planes of orbit. But with other stars, the odds of the plane being in our line of sight AND a planet happening to pass right between us and the star while they're looking, the odds of that have to be pretty damn low.
I mean, I'm sure they realize this, but I'd have to think they had to look at tens of thousands of stars to catch 100 planets passing by, at least. Am I missing something?