Slashdot Mirror
Hot Jupiters May Indicate Hospitable Planets
eldavojohn writes "An interesting article from National Geographic points out that other solar systems which contain planets like a 'Hot Jupiter' have a higher chance of also containing Earth-like planets." From the article: "'We now think there is a new class of ocean-covered--and possibly habitable--planets in solar systems unlike our own,' Raymond said. The simulations also showed that rocky planets known as hot Earths may often form when hot Jupiters push material forward during their inward treks. But hot Earths, which can be up to five times bigger than our Earth, orbit closer to their stars and are not likely to support life. Even if water does contribute to their formation, most hot Earths probably end up dry, study co-author Raymond says. "
Hot planets
inward treks
Five times bigger
probably end up dry
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
At first it says that a Hot Jupiter would make a habitable planet, but then it says that the Hot Earths it makes will be uninhabitable.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Here's what I've been kicking around:
1. There was love.
2. Love made 2.
3. The 2 made a machine that makes universes. This machine is not sentient, however it can generate randomness.
4. The 2 become the unknown number (maximum sentients possible). This number is even.
5. A universe starts, and then repeats, according to the machine. The laws of physics in the next universe are not necessarily the same.
Now these 2 are NOT man and woman. They are identical, perfect beings. Furthermore, they did not split up into man and woman sentients. It is only our body that has gender. Cats and dogs are sentient too.
You have the anthropomorphic principle built in here. The machine won't make a universe without possibility of life--the 2 would not have programmed it that way. I think there's others out there, but the speed of light hasn't been broken (any may be unbreakable).
What we need is a five-year mission to explore these strange, new worlds, seek out new life, and new civilizations...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Hot Jupiters May Indicate Hospitable Penis.
"Hot Jupiter, Batman! What's going on here?"
What happens to an ocean-covered planet to have it eventually end up dry? Perhaps the same mechanism that removed most of the land-covering water after the Noachian flood?
Kidding.
But hot Earths, which can be up to five times bigger than our Earth, orbit closer to their stars and are not likely to support life. Even if water does contribute to their formation, most hot Earths probably end up dry, study co-author Raymond says.
Among a billion and billion of stars, it is statistically likely to find a planet or two to have just the right condition to hold water at the right temperature. Proof? Look at our planet.
An interesting idea, in any case.
Hot Mars if you are gay.
Hot Jupiter you like a BBW.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
But of course if you can get more hits for advertising on
-- SIGFPE
Rather than the clunky, misleading, and overly broad use of "Earth like," I wish articles like this would use the perfectly good term "terrestrial."
Mercury, Venus, Mars and Earth are all terrestrials. Rocky worlds, as opposed to gas giants or icy bodies.
For more information, see the blog entry of Penn State astronomy professor Steinn Sigurðsson, one of the coauthors of this paper.
Step 1) Discover possibly habitable worlds (or get others to do it for you)
Step 2) Sell acreage on said worlds
Step 3) Profit!
There is no ??? here, it's a pure goldmine. I have to hop on this right away (PATENT PENDING PATENT PENDING PATENT PENDING).
Once I run out of acreage on discovered planets, I'll just start selling space on the next discovered one.
C'mon you know you want a beach house in an entirely different galaxy (nevermind that the beach overlooks an ocean of magma).
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
"Hot Jupiters!" has just become my favorite exclamation, bumping "Good Gravy!" off the list and pushing "OH BOY OH BOY OH BOY!!!" down to the #2 spot.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Has anybody exhaustively explored the concept?
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
...the term for an "earth-like" planet is "Class M".
These scientists, however, are talking about "Hot Earths" -- which would be "Class L" planets.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Since when is there more than one solar system? Are there multiple stars other then our own sun with the name Sol? I guess the uneducated masses have relegated solar system to the same generic status as xerox.
Devon in Denver
How about a hot Uranus? Is that what they call a black hole?
This study is a little bit backwards. The underlaying problem is that we can not detect if nearby stars have planets like ours. We only have resolution to find big planets that orbit hot. And of course, since this is the only thing we can see, we see this often. And of course since we can not see small rocky planets 150Mkm from a star, we do not see any solar systems like ours.
So now we have found a buch of "Hot Jupiters", and not earths with water, and what do we do?
Well, we do just like the drunk that is looking for his lost coin under the street-light, even though he lost it in the dark alley:
Just change the theory from "No earthlike planets in systems with a hot Jupiter" to "Many earthlike planets in systems with a hot Jupiter"
Here is my bet: As soon as instruments become sensitive enough to see extrasolar earthlike planets, we will find a lot of them. Further, they will be the ones we find life on. Not the ones with a close orbiting (i.e. hot) jupiter type planet.
Would be interesting to see the actual simulation they have done to see how this is modelled.
"Fix it"
If you read the article, it's a bit more clear than the summary apparently was for you.
The article is saying that as Hot Jupiters migrate inwards, they temporarily disrupt the belt of debris in the habitable zone of a forming solar system. Then, after the Hot Jupiter has passed through, that debris has a chance to coalesce into habitable, Earth-like planets. In addition to this (and this is where careful reading and good reading comprehension skills come in handy), Hot Earths can be formed when Hot Jupiters push some material forward with them during their inward migration. From the article:(Emphasis added.)
Jeebus, buddy, why start with love? Why not just start with randomness? You have enough of that, you automatically have everything else you mentioned. And you have an infinite amount of that. Any particular slice of that randomness might define a starting condition, a set of rules to eveolve the starting condition, or a point along that evolution.
Love is such a hokey place to start. Why not shoot higher? Start with awareness, or consciousness, or reference, or division or some other abstract concept that hasn't already been done to death. Love. Fegh. I did that one when I was four. Not that it's not nice and all, but starting from there necessarily leads to some mind numbing inconsitencies when you think far enought through the implications.
Here's a fun one: You start with a lack of any definition whatsoever. This lack of definition necessarily includes all possible definitions as well as all lack of definition, to say it doesn't is to define it. So zero is not nothingness any more than it is the lack of nothingness. Some definitions imply a set of laws and a starting condition, also conveniently contained within our infinite undefined nothingness. Zero becomes one because it needs something to refer to it, and one becomes two for the same reason. The Ain Soph becomes the Way, which becomes Yin and Yang. Yang is nothing, refering to everything. Yin is everything, refering to nothing, and the way is the laws which move the two forward, becoming the ten-thousand things (or the world, as it is called in Buddhist philosophy.) I just made that one up off the top of my head.
Honestly, you kids these days, you think you invented this shit. Gah, stinks of the dharma, doesn't have a teacher to indoctrinate him into a particular path: this is what we get. "It's all love!" Well, you know where that leads?
God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
Seriously, you should read a bit more of the classics.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Um, no, you just read the story wrong. The story is saying that both "hot Earths" and habitable, Earth-like planets can form in systems that have so-called hot Jupiters.
It amazes me how some folks are so quick to judge something that they actually wind up demonstrating their own ignorance (or inability to comprehend a slightly confusing science article, take your pick).
Big karma loss. That was totally not worth it. Now you have to do the subscribe, whore first post, karma game.
I am itching for the day of fast, inter-galaxy travel to strange habitable planets with vast oceans and crazy giant sea creatures. I just hope they can shoot HBO out there, can't miss the next season of Entourage.
Well, your somewhat coherent parts are interesting. You could start with randomness, then you get:
1. There is random.
2. Random makes a random amount of sentients (which may not be even!)
3. Random start a universe.
4. Repeat 3.
But the problem is that a universe made by Random would not have the kind of order we see. You could introduce the anthropic principle here, but still you could have the situation of an Earth with stars that swirl around in the sky all night for no reason.
We could use more hot earth women.
God spoke to me.
Infinite sentients? I do have infinite, in that I have 4--Goto 3.
Think I came across that in Kevin Kelly's book "out of control". I just remember snickering to myself, thinking that it really should have been an anonymous essay. Broges seemed to want to take a lot of credit for a piece that argued that nobody should really take credit for coming up foo stuff.
Karma's hard to earn, y'know!
The article is rather confusingly written, surprising for National G.
A better one (IMHO) can be found here, and mentions that that Raymond et al's paper is in the current issue of Science .
There's also a summary in Science Now .
-- Alastair
26.03.2137 1500 Entry #135811
Donny had an accident today and was exposed to the xenosphere out there. I'm starting to get a little worried here
because this morning he was still fine, four hours into the quarantine period but Walt says from what he's been
able to tell Donny has started coughing up bloody phlegm.
26.03.2137 2000 Entry #135812
Walt convinced me to let him take the portable xray into the airlock and took pictures of Donny's lungs.
From what I understand the situation couldn't be worse. According to Walt his lungs and bronchial tubes are
filling up with some sort of xenobiological organism kind of like a mold. Walt is trying out all sorts of
antibiotics and antiviral medication but it doesn't look good.
27.03.2137 0100 Entry #135813
Donny died a terrible death just minutes ago 0005 hours choking and going into convulsions. He was only exposed
to the atmosphere of this world for maybe four minutes until he got back into the lock but that's obviously all it
takes to get infected. To think that this planet looks so earth-like, the clear lakes and rivers and even the
atmosphere is remarkably close to Earth but then when you see this odd yellowish vegetation not really definable
in Earth terms as fungus, plant or animal, rather some odd mix of the characteristics of all of these... that
life is really hostile, I don't think people will ever be able to live here. Anyhow we buried Donny minutes after
and I think going from the discoloration on his left cheek that some of it was working it's way into his system
through the skin too but that will probably be explored in depth in Walt's medical report.
Considering that Earth-like planets may have been created billions of years before our own, I don't think it very probable that we would be the first, unless intelligent life is very unlikely to happen. For instance, how about the rather improbable asteroid collision that scientists believe killed the dinosaurs. If it had not happened, Earth could have had intelligent life 50 million years ago.
Taking into account all the parameters in Drake's equation, we have very many stars in our galaxy, and we are finding that many of them have planets. We still don't know how many of those can develop life, but it's obvious that some of the other parameters must have very low values, or we would have found many extra-terrestrial civilizations by now.
Perhaps the probability of developing life is very low. Suppose, for instance, that life in our planet first arose in tidal flats. In that case, having a sizable moon would be needed, it could be uncommon for planets in the habitable zone. Or perhaps the habitable zone is very narrow. Or maybe a planet needs exactly the same proportion of water as ours have.
Having developed complex life forms, I think intelligence is not uncommon. We have several mammal species that display rather advanced intelligence, and some forms of birds and mollusks seem to have intelligence to varied degrees. Intelligence seems to be inevitable, given a big enough brain. Maybe there is an upper limit on how much it will develop, although I think it's unlikely, given the competitive advantage our species is showing in occupying the other species' habitats. Of course, it took our own planet 4.5 billion years to develop intelligence, and the dinosaurs apparently existed for hundreds of millions of years without developing any form of superior intelligence, this seems to be an argument for a natural "cap" on the highest level of intelligence that will be developed in an ecosystem.
Assuming intelligence exists, I think it's almost inevitable that search for extra-terrestrial life forms will happen sooner or later. Intelligence implies curiosity, it's a very strong evolutionary advantage. Beings with curiosity will expand their original niches and gradually occupy any existing habitat.
Given all that, I think the lack of ETs on Earth is due to one of two possible causes: either the probability of life arising is very low, or there is an "interdict law" among space-faring races, that protect from contact planets with primitive life forms that may eventually develop intelligence.
Jeez man, what do you have against Donny?
you sicko.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
When talking to some girls, I have an urge to exclaim "Uranus is HOT!!!"
If there were no hot Earths, where would the hot Jupiters get their hot starbabies from?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
It sounds like Paris Hilton is naming planets now. I think the conversation went something like this.
Paris "That Jupiter is totally hot."
Nicole "Yea and the Earth it created is too."
Paris "Yea like, totally."
Nicole "Oh my God, I want to make out with it."
Paris "Yea, that would be totally hot."
How the hell did an organism that had never been exposed to anything remotely like terrestrial life adapt to use a human as a host within a few seconds?
Dang it. I just wasted my last mod point on some guy 2-3 posts up. That's pretty darn funny.
Actually, I rolled my eyes and almost stopped reading when I saw "I've been studying extrasolar planets for exactly 40 years." I'm not necessarily the brightest flashing light on the tricorder...
Stat wise you can claim that there is ONE Earth with life that is intelligent -per galaxy (using us as the only positive sample for this galaxy.)
If you agree with that premise, then there is an estimated 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe; therefore, we can estimate there is 200 billion places similar to Earth.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
...if they released the software they were doing the simulations with under an Open Source license.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hey there "Drooling Iguana" Well I would disagree. Take for example, the fact that the first drugs used by humans were mostly plants that contained chemical compounds that just so happened to "accidentally" fit into human cell receptors, and caused interesting reactions in the human body. These plants did not evolve to purposely intoxicate humans, or relieve pain, and alot of these plants never encountered a human or primate in the course of their evolution. Poppies evolved to look pretty and thereby get themselves pollinated... not to be ingested as opium! In this very same way, some chemicals and compounds in an alien biosystem could (and probably will) fit into human cell receptors, and do some funky things to the human body. Some of these compounds could even be in the form of self-replicating nano-sized particles. (Afterall our biosphere naturally produces nano-sized particles that function within cells). So I don't buy the argument that many scientists espouse: "Don't worry about brining alien life back to Earth. It can't hurt us. It didn't evolve to infect us." Famous last words. Alien life, if it exists, is just that: alien, unknown, and mysterious. No one can say for sure what its effects will be on humans and our biosphere. - Wave_Rider_1899
'We now think there is a new class of ocean-covered--and possibly habitable--planets in solar systems unlike our own,'
Well ofcause there are ocean covered planets in the solar system, after all where else would the Empire build their clone armies!?!
It's not very clear in the article, but I think the original intent of the investigators was to relay that ocean bearing planets AND "hot earths" are likely to form in a system with a hot Jupiter. There's a buried 'also' implication in the article, and the illustration demonstrates the three kinds of planets. I think this is more a case of poor writing than a misrepresentative headline.
There's a big difference between a chemical compound that has certain effects on humans and a parasitic mold that uses human bodies as a host, as in the GGP.
Of course there are other habitable planets...just look at all the crop circles. print 'hello world' hello world
'sig' deleted due to the stupidity of it's 'nature'
It is encouraging that there may be "earth like" planets out there. But not so much as for us to find alien life as it is for us to have new planets to colonize. I say this because there are many possible configurations which can lead to intelligence. But let's top for a moment and figure out what defines the intelligence that we seek: well, it's difficult to figure out. Cats and dogs seem to have something, but also something missing. Well, that missing part is recursion in the thought process. It is what allows us to manipulate abstract concepts and to have our complex language. I really lack the time and space to go into the whole theory here, but you can look up what Prof. Marc Hauser of Harvard has to say on the topic.
Back to aliens: what is needed is a system which lends itself towards complex and changing conditions, such as an an environment with a temperature range which supports frequent phase changes of a major compent material (like water here on earth), some method of distributing materials around (volcanoes, rain, tides). There are going to be plenty of places like this in the universe, but what we eventually find to be intelligent life may not even appear to us as a life form at first, because it will be vastly different than anything we have likely experienced. except, well....
Viruses. It could be that the genetic system we now know of has orginiated elsewhere and adapted on this planet. This is the theory of Panspermia, which has a lot going for it. But even if panspermia exists, it is likely that the vast majority of intelligent life that we find in the universe will not be made of it.
Sort of -- a gas giant transit might be impressive if not actually an eclipse?
How could a planet that consists of water, especially with a high temperature, end up dry? This doesn't make sense. There's nowhere for the water to go. Even if the water was evaporated, there would still be water.
I wonder what the co-auther meant by his statement about dryness.
Is a hot Jupiter anything like a Hot Lunch?? If so then ewww.
There's also a big difference between a person who reads science fiction and the asshole who sits off to the side saying "that's all bullshit." You can unclench the asshole once in a while, it's alright.
Also, for L4 and L5 to be stable, the Jupiter-like planet has to be about 25 times less massive than the sun, or smaller ( 24.7 ? I forget the exact number. ) As the sun gets small enough for L4 and L5 to be cool enough, the ratio drops below the crucial figure, and even L4 and L5 are not stable.
It works just as well the other way, too: Why is it that healthy people don't get digested and putrefied by bacteria, when corpses will be broken down in a few weeks or months? Because the human immune system has been refined over a long period to recognize and fight the particular organisms that continuously try to invade and digest our bodies. So why would you expect our immune system to know how to fight off a completely alien lifeform that it's never experienced anything like before? Hell, lots of people get sick just flying to another continent, let alone another ecosystem.
Keep in mind that in the eat-or-be-eaten scenario, the eater need only know how to digest and make use of the opponent's raw materials. The eatee has to know how to disable or kill the attacker, a much more difficult problem. Without our immune system, we're equivalent to 150-pound bags of rich growth medium...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
With 'simulations' and actual data from solar systems, does this mean we will be able to start solving the Drake equation?
According to the new IAU definition of a Planet, an Earth-like planet must orbit our Sun. Due the IAU's poor definition of a planet (one that restricts the term to only objects that orbit our Sun) one cannot even refer to Earth-like planets around other stars because they cannot fit the IAU's new definition.
I wish this was a troll post, but it is not. It is am example of the problems with the recent IAU resolution. It is the reason why I joined a number of astronomers and signed the Petition Protesting the IAU Planet Definition.
Finally, to improve the on topic-ness of this post, permit me to add this note about the significance of idea, if it turns out to have merit:
chongo (was here)
It's an Earth-like planet-like body orbiting a Sun-like object.
Bruce
But how do we define intelligence in a non-speciescentric way? Our current definition of intelligence hinges on compairing other examples to ourself. Dolphins are intelligent (by human standard), wherease blue-green algea isn't (by human standards). But both could be defined as intelligent in that they occupy their niche sucessfully, and display the amount of adaptability needed to thrive in said niche. Less sucessful than us, perhaps, but we're generalists.
See the general problem behind defining extra-human intelligence?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
What an inaccurate headline and summary.
It should read something like:
...other solar systems which contain planets like a 'Hot Jupiter' have a higher chance of also containing Earth-like planets than originally thought...
It was originally thought that Hot Jupiters would prevent the formation of earth-like planets, now it appears that they may be able to form anyway, at least some some of the time. The article doesn't say that having Hot Jupiters improves the chances of earth-like planets forming vis-a-vis not have Hot Jupiters. Also, of course, the bit about Hot Earths has nothing to do with the headline.
--
harvey
..hot grits in Natalie Portman's pants? Isn't that hospitable?
Read the definition (PDF warning) more closely. That definition of planets only applied to objects within our Solar System. Bodies in other Solar Systems have no definitions. Not that that isn't a problem in itself, but since they have no definitions we can call them whatever we want. I will hereby refer to these objects as Earth-like starorbliographs.
Sigs are for the weak.
We didn't even begin to explore what meeting intelligent life could be like...
... ... upset with us.
"You know, they look remarkably like big teddy bears, but they're dressed up in armor
and they carry machine guns. I've seen them attack. When you put them down you have to
make sure they're done for. Aim for their heads and blow out their brains, anything
less than that and chances are they'll hose you down before they go back to Teddyhell
or wherever they came from. Fucken freaking bears on steroids, I heard they rip off
people's heads and play sick games with them. Heard they captured some Teddies and
found a way to talk to them, one of them called us "weird furless freaks" and that
they're going to make us sorry for coming here.
Personally, but don't you dare tell anyone this but I can't really hold it against them.
We've been dropping bombs on their cities the day we got here and one of those places
was a 250 square mile Manhattan. No wonder they're