Slashdot Mirror
Microlensing Uncovers Earth-Like Planet
smooth wombat writes "Using a new technique called gravitational microlensing, a team of astronomers have discovered the smallest Earth-like planet circling a star 20,000 light years away in the constellation Sagittarius. Unfortunately the planet takes ten years to circle the red dwarf and has a surface temperature estimated at -220 C which means it's just a larger version of Pluto so the chance of finding life on this planet is essentially zero."
Unfortunately the planet takes ten years to circle the red dwarf and has a surface temperature estimated at -220 C which means it's just a larger version of Pluto so the chance of finding life on this planet is essentially zero.
So it's earth-like how?
Sorry to carp, but it's stuff like this, especially in 'science' articles, that drives me to distraction.
From TFA (boldface mine):Umm...wouldn't that be the textbook definition of solid ? In the absence of any information as to the composition of the 'frozen liquid, the term 'frozen liquid' could apply equally well to any terrestrial planet.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The more novel thing (to me) would be discovering the ruins of ancient (chronologically speaking) civilization on a planet like that.
I tend to think the chances of us finding life on anything 20,000 life years away is essentially zero.
Quote:
So, by all means, let's just stop looking then. That's the easy solution. Seriously though, I hate when people think like this. Maybe by looking out into deep space, we'll discover some new method for easily detecting life which we can then apply to Mars. That is unlikely, but still, science is about exploring, not just throwing down the hat at something silly like a problem that we can't quite answer yet.
Whomever said that hopefully isn't a scientist and/or working on this project.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
It's small. Most every planet discovered so far has been an object with very large mass - enough to perturb the host star. Gravitational lensing allowed these scientists to detect a planet with much smaller mass. The cool thing is that these astronomers are finding new ways with current land-based technology to image distant small planets around stars. With these advances, some day we may well find a planet giving off a telltale spectroscopic oxygen signature - a real indicator of life. So, baby steps first I guess.
This style of reporting is beyond annoying. I'd much rather have this story presented like it is "Using the microlensing technique first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1912, a team of astronomers have discovered a rocky planet about 5 times the mass of the earth some 25,000 light years away. It orbits a red dwarf....." Personally I was more intriqued by Albert Einsteins' involvement than the idiotic claims of the planet being "Earth-like" but.....not.
www.brownsauce.org
Well, if you mean life, as in Jessica Alba, you're correct.
But that's a tad provincial, limited, humdrum, some might say. We know very little about chemistry at 50 degrees Kelvin. Maybe there are some chemical reactions that don't go at all at our room temperature, but run just fine at 50K.
Might be a tad slow, but who says life has to run at our speed?
"surface temperature estimated at -220 C ... so the chance of finding life on this planet is essentially zero"
I am sure the little green men on that planet are saying the same thing about our 32 C planet. "There is no way anything could live on a planet above -100 C."
I can't believe most everyone here is up in arms because the term "earthlike" was used. That basically refers to mass, and is technically correct in it's field. Remember, astronomers refer to anything above helium as "metals." But it leads so many to say "Nothing to see here, there's no giant trees or sea monsters on that planet." How jaded do you have to be to have ridiculous expectations like that?
That astronomers can detect that planet at all is a phenomenal acheivement. Before this, the only extrasolar planets that could be detected had large masses in close orbits, a rather extreme situation. But here's something quite outside that class. So its parameters aren't inside the "habitable zone." It's the first discovery of its kind. The attitude I'm seeing here is like someone claiming poker is no fun because they haven't been dealt a royal flush on their first hand. It's the process, more than this particular result, that should inspire amazement.
And it was seen at 20,000 light years away. That really, really far, a galactic distance! That means there are a lot of stars potentially obnservable using this technique. Even if the alignment is relatively rare, with billions of stars to try, perhaps sooner or later one or two will prove themselves to be more interesting to this unreasonably demanding crowd. But then I'm sure the discovery will be discounted if the alien civilization hasn't developed Linux.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Despite all these posts from people bitching about how this planet isn't exactly the same as our own, it's the closed we've found so far, and is much more Earth-like than the rest. It is not a huge, hot gas giant like most of the other extrasolar planets discovered. It has a solid rocky surface, and is relatively small.
If they can detect planets like this now (especially at 25,000 light years! wow), it is only a matter of time before a planet that is truly Earth-like is discovered.
sudo eat my shorts
Anyone should know that each planet takes only one year to orbit it's star. It may take more or less earth years. But that's beside the point.
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
he was referring to Microsoft employees.
I think it's more that YOU don't know. But don't speak for the rest of science.
Come on! We have observed how many % of cosmos, to make wide-assumptions on the entire thing?
If you say "earth-like life" and "not likely", it will be more clear and everybody will probably agree.
Yeah, but don't forget the wise part, too. The wise man also knows stuff. Probably chemistry. Mysticism isn't wisdom; it's often just a fancy justification for ignorance.
Wisdom has nothing to do with facts. Any computer can reiterate facts. In fact, encyclopedias has lots of facts, but do not possess wisdom, not even within those facts.
The danger in extrapolating from facts and known physics, is missing what is actually there in reality.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/