Scientists Find Water on Extra-solar Planet

amigoro writes "Scientists have, for the first time, conclusively discovered the presence of water vapour in the atmosphere of a planet beyond our Solar System, according to an article appearing in Nature. They made the discovery by analysing the transit of the gas giant HD 189733b across its star, in the Infrared using data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. HD 189733b is a 'hot jupiter', a gas giant that is roughly the size and mass of Jupiter but orbits very close to the star, so no chance of life there."

Comments

no change of life like us

[QuantumG]

The arrogance of thinking that we're the only possible form of life is ludicrous.

Re:no change of life like us

[alexj33]

But just because you find the idea "ludicrous" or offensive doesn't make it more true/false one iota.

It could very well be that the "arrogant" or offensive answer is the right one. The total lack of any evidence for extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otherwise, should be a strong indicator that we are very, very alone.

Re:no change of life like us

[ZachMG]

The idea that we are alone and the idea that we aren't alone are both as astounding so why is it any less astounding that the lifeforms are not water based as that they are.

Re:no change of life like us

[FST777]

It's arguable that arrogance might mean nothing on these scales. IMHO, both assumptions are sides in a debate, and oftentimes I find both equally arrogant.

We know the human race is not special from a biological POV. For me, that is the limit where arrogance stops. I have a hard time thinking about arrogance in favor of a type of lifeform (nationalism, racism, specism, lifetypism?).

Re:no change of life like us

[Dragonslicer]

There is an enormous amount of evidence to imply lack of extraterrestrial life. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re:no change of life like us

[smallfries]

I'm surprised parent got modded down. There is an enormous amount of evidence to imply lack of extraterrestrial life. Lack of radio waves is the major one, for me, and no one has explained this so far.

Well the simplest explanation is that we have looked well enough. Ironically the post directly above you gives one satisfactory explanation of this, but I guess you didn't look hard enough before posting:

And, heck, then there's the sheer size of interstellar distances. If there was an exact copy of Earth sitting in a solar system just a measly 200 ly away, we still wouldn't be able to pick up any of their transmissions, because they started transmitting less than 200 years ago.

I've yet to see a single piece of evidence of a lack of extraterrestrial life. Could you name a single piece from this enormous amount that you are aware of. Of course remembering that absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence...

"no chance of life there"

[MutantEnemy]

You mean no chance of life as we know it...

Re:"no chance of life there"

[resonte]

"More likely, in an infinite universe, we are of about average intelligence."

I believe that statement is incorrect. Intelligence has a finite limit when it diverges to stupidity. However you can't define an upper limit of Intelligence.

Intelligence starts off from 0 and shoots off into infinity.

Therefore in an infinite universe, you are always stupider than the rest of the Universe.

Re:Hrrmph!

[Salgat]

I don't get it, what is so amazing about water on other planets? Water is simply the reaction of two rather simple and common elements, Hydrogen and Oxygen. Making water is by far not a hard task.

No Chance Of Life?!?! WTF?

[ThePopeLayton]

so no chance of life there.

This is a pretty bold statement. Scientist predicted that life couldn't survive in a number of environments on earth, yet it has been found in each one:

1- In lakes frozen hundreds of meters down in antarctica
2- In the dept of the ocean where NO light permeates
3- Next to Volcanic openings in the earths crust were tempuratues are well over 800 degress c
4- In the highly acidic and poisionus ponds in Yellowstone National Park

I am sure that there are more but I can't think of any.

So for some scientist to say that there can't be life, I just have to role my eyes. One thing that I have learned about life is that life will find away. So just because we can't concieve of the possible forms that life might take its a little presumputous for us to assume that it can't exist.

Earth is a small speck in the universe, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not but to assume that life, as we know it on this planet, is the only form and location of life in the universe is a very ignorant view point.

I am of the firm conviction that as soon as we have the technology to explores these remote and hostile locations we will find things that we haven't even dreamed could exist.

So to get off my little soapbox here; if there is water there is probably life, and just because the conditions on the planet don't fit are current formula for life doesn't mean that our formula is correct.

Re:No Chance Of Life?!?! WTF?

[Tomfrh]

So for some scientist to say that there can't be life, I just have to role my eyes.

yeah, what do they know. I mean after all, some scientists in the past have made predictions that were wrong, so you'd be a fool to listen to anything a scientist has to say.

Re:No Chance Of Life?!?! WTF?

[QuantumG]

Yup, cause we really explored the Moon. After all, we landed on 5 or 6 random positions on the equator, stayed there for an hour or two and picked up some rocks. Planetoid explored!

Mars, we've not even gone to. We've got some rock inspecting toys up there, but that's about it.

Venus, we've never been to there either. Our probes have sampled the atmosphere, that's about it. We still have no idea why it has such a strange rotation.

We have absolutely no credible statement to make about the prevalence of life in the solar system, let alone the universe. But hey, anonymous person on Slashdot, thanks setting us straight.

Re:Some miscellaneous information:

[jollyreaper]

HD 189733b is a gas giant planet with 1.15 times the mass of Jupiter and 1.26 its diameter. It orbits its primary in only 2.219 days and in a distance of 0.0313 AU. This is one of the closest planet-star systems known. The planet's surface temperature is 920 kelvin on the poles and 1220 kelvin on the bright side. Have they come up with a theory on how such planets could form? The last time I read up on this stuff, before they discovered extra-solar planets, the idea was that a star like Sol had an accretion disk that was spread along the solar plane thanks to centrifugal force. The solar wind helped push much of the lighter gases out to the far edges and the heavier, rockier material stayed closer to the inside. Due to the influences of gravity and other forces, you tended to see matter bunch up in concentric circles. Given enough time, the pieces all tended to glomp together and you have planets. The asteroid belt represents a planet that would have been but for Jupiter's vast influence.

According to this theory, it would be impossible for a gas giant to form so close to a parent star, it would be blown to pieces. So clearly one theory or the other is wrong here. Since I don't hear a lot of other scientists laughing at the extra-solar planet people, I'm guessing the original planet formation theory is wrong. So, what's current?

Flawed Proposition

[CheeseburgerBrown]

There aren't an infinite amount of planets -- there's like a golybillion. And everyone knows that infinity less a golybillion is a whopping sum, so your error is truly is staggering proportions.

The universe is largely transparent, and we can see almost all the way to its privates. The decorations are of the same style and motif throughout, so we can pit our local gravity-well spirlies against theirs and make some reasonable guesses about how far away far is. Since it turns out it's in the neighbourhood of 13 billion lightyears away, I think we can -- as civilized folk -- agree that 13 billion is more than a golybillion shy of infinity.

Check my maths if you're a stickler, but I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here.

Space is finite (if gummy), therefore the number of decorations whorled up by our familiar physics is finite, therefore the number of little planety lumps inside of them is finite. Q.E.D.

Re:Flawed Proposition

[onedotzero]

Agreed. If there were infinite planets, there would be infinite stars. Thus, any point you look at in the sky would end up at a star if there were nothing in the way.

The Universe is not infinite, because the sky is dark at night.

Re:Hrrmph!

[kestasjk]

The planet they detected water vapor on is, apparently, close enough to its star to be molten. Maybe superheating doesn't get rid of the water vapor, maybe it's about having a magnetic field or something.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Dragonslicer]

The universe is infinite, but the number of planets certainly isn't. I believe that's only true if the portion of the universe that contains planets is finite. Let's say 1/10 of the universe contains planets (because it's too early in the morning for large numbers). 1/10 of infinity is still infinity. Of course, since we essentially have no idea what "infinite" means in the context of the universe, nothing we say about it can be considered even close to accurate.

pebfab

[benhocking]

I.e., problem exists between fish and brain. You must have had the babel fish inserted the wrong way, because Gore never said that. I realize that's supposed to be a joke, but to me, it's about as funny as "super serial" or "manbearpig".

Re:Some miscellaneous information:

[WalksOnDirt]

I think mostly the interaction of many smaller objects is suspected, although a close pass by another object in the stellar nursery might sometimes get things started.

Jupiter cleared its orbit when the solar system was young, mostly by flinging other objects out of the solar system. In doing so, its orbit shrank. Given a denser environment, the shrinkage appears to be able to continue until a gas giant gets quite close to the parent star.

Re:It's the magnetic field

[htaedtnelis]

Just because life here on Earth depends on water, doesn't mean that there can't be some other form of life that doesn't need it. Ok, there may be too many negatives in there to make much sense (outside of my mind anyways), but what I'm trying to say is this: There could be some other form of life that doesn't need water.