Slashdot Mirror


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."

28 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. Hrrmph! by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    All this talk about water on extra-solar planets. Now if they found a trapdoor, that would be something!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Hrrmph! by Salgat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Hrrmph! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The parent really isn't a troll.

      Hydrogen is fairly common in the universe (90% of its composition), but oxygen isn't except in and near stars (because it is only created by fusion inside the stars and ejected free by supernovas). It makes sense that gas giants will pick up traces of oxygen and then form some water and it makes sense that rocky planets will have the potential to form water since the major constituent of silicious minerals is obviously quartz or SiO2. Any rocky planet that has had some differentiation process would likely have the silicious minerals float to the top like with the Earth and thus have a great potential of having liquid water form if the atmosphere could support it. Mercury, Venus, and Mars are great examples of places where the atmosphere could not support liquid water. On one side if do not have a powerful enough geomagnetic field, the solar wind will strip the atmosphere leaving the surface bare like Mercury and Mars. On the other side, if you gas the atmosphere too much with CO2 from volcanoes, the atmosphere will superheat allowing the water vapour to rise and be broken up by UV light like on Venus. So there is a sweet spot where the Earth exists to have a rocky planet with a strong enough geomagnetic field and enough gassing by volcanoes to support the atmosphere.

    3. Re:Hrrmph! by hazem · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not so much that it's unexpected. Theory predicts the existence of water on planets. This is just conclusive confirmation... which is pretty cool.

      Kind of like how theoretically, in spite of being a male who reads slashdot, I should be able to get laid. It's just pretty cool when I get conclusive proof of that theory.

  2. hmm by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientists Find Water on Extra-solar Planet

    The only extra solar planet I know of is Pluto, and we've already had that discussion.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. no change of life like us by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:no change of life like us by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Funny

      "And yet it may indeed be that ours is the easiest, and therefore most likely, form of life to get started."

      o argument about it. Its a lot easier than, say, building a car. A car requires over 3,000 pieces - to make a human only requires 2 bumpers and a connecting rod.

    2. Re:no change of life like us by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

      There can be a species of friendly gas bags

      Unlike the species of evil gas bags we keep electing...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:no change of life like us by bhiestand · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      I don't even think that's good evidence for a lack of life. Just rounding here, but let's say humanity has been using radio waves for 100 years. 100 years from now we may well be using some other form of communication entirely. Of course I don't know what it could be, but nobody using smoke signals would've guessed radio waves would be the next big thing. So if, as a planet, we're only using detectably artificial radio waves for 200 years of the 4+ billion years the earth has existed and hundreds of millions of years that life has existed, and other planets develop in a very similar way, we're now looking for a stray quark in a haystack instead of a needle in a very large haystack. Hell, it's not very likely that the first extraterrestrial life we detect will be within 200 years of us in terms of technological advancement.

      Absent an amazing discovery of microbial bacteria or fossils on mars or titan, I think it's very likely that our first indication of life will be the discovery of a planet with a stable oxygen/nitrogen/CO2 atmosphere like our own.

      Assuming that all life and civilizations evolve at about the same rate, and all life eventually leads to intelligent life, we're likely to find millions of Alien Life Forms (ALFs) before we find any that are within a few hundred years of us in technology. Why is any more explanation needed?
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    4. Re:no change of life like us by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is an enormous amount of evidence to imply lack of extraterrestrial life. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    5. Re:no change of life like us by smallfries · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...
      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  4. "no chance of life there" by MutantEnemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Grr! Arg!
    1. Re:"no chance of life there" by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which brings up the question, "what is life?". For millenium we've considered ourselves chosen by god, or at least special among all the animals on earth. However, what if we found another form of life that was as intelligent as we are? What if we found one that was more intelligent. How are we even sure that what we're looking for is going to be anything like us. Who says there won't be a race the size of Smurfs on some other planet. Who says there's no way you could have animals that think and act like humans yet get their energy from the sun and breath carbon dioxide like plants do.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:"no chance of life there" by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude... Your preaching to the choir.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
  5. While a great discovery, Is this surprising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and oxygen is the third most common (helium, the second, is inert).

    The most common heteroatomic molecule is likely to be water...

    1. Re:While a great discovery, Is this surprising? by Le+Marteau · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, it's not surprising. No one is saying it is a 'surprise'. It's just that water has never been detected outside of our planet, scientifically, and that's kind of cool.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  6. Some miscellaneous information: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  7. No Chance Of Life?!?! WTF? by ThePopeLayton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:No Chance Of Life?!?! WTF? by bahwi · · Score: 3, Informative

      You've mistaken the poster for the scientist
      "so no chance of life there"

      but in the article it clearly says:
      "This is a far from habitable world," she adds.

      Which means it's a no for us. As well:
      "Although the planet is an unlikely candidate in the search for life"

      Which is no the same as "no chance"

      Your post makes perfect sense but to assume that it is a scientist saying that there can't be life is incorrect.

    2. Re:No Chance Of Life?!?! WTF? by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  8. I'm going to be rich. by GreggBz · · Score: 4, Funny

    The new company is called Space2ohh (TM). Clean, pure, out of this world refreshment.

    I'm seeking venture capital.

  9. I have a friend I'd like you to meet by r_jensen11 · · Score: 4, Funny

    His name is Vijay

  10. Re:"conclusively"? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's called Spectroscopy, and is extremely cool stuff. It's used in everything from detecting compositions of stars/planets to identifying really old manuscripts.

    Here is an excellent article to get you started:

    http://astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/water _on_hd_209458b

    And, of course:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spectros copy&oldid=143266670

  11. Let me know when they find beer by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    When they detect beer on another planet, THEN, we'll be talking!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  12. Flawed Proposition by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:I can prove there is no life on any other plane by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Informative

    How many planets are out there? Infinite.
    There can be only a finite amount of life supporting planets.


          Just because I feel like nit-picking. If you have an infinite number of planets, you also have an infinite number of planets that support life. Only this is a smaller "infinite" number.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. It's the magnetic field by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, you're right about Earth being a statistic improbability of many factors being just right, but methinks you're slightly wrong about Venus. Which is somewhat of a pity, since Venus is the perfect illustration of how many factors must be just right to get an Earth instead of a Venus.

    On Venus too, it was the magnetic field -- or rather, lack thereof -- that did it. It's not just that some water gets split into hydrogen and oxygen, in which case it would just recombine sooner or later. It's that on Venus the lack of magnetic field allowed the solar winds to gradually wipe away the hydrogen. Venus is heavy enough to hold on th the slightly heavier elements, like Oxygen and Carbon anyway, even without a magnetic field. Hydrogen is a different story.

    Outgassing CO2, well:

    1. Earth spewed enough of that too, which is how it thawed back when cyanobacteria turned the atmosphere to O2 and the whole planet got deep frozen. (The Sun started a lot "cooler" and gradually warmed up. _Now_ it's warm enough to support life without a greenhouse effect, but in the beginning it wasn't.) I don't think there is any evidence that Venus spewed much more CO2 than Earth. On Earth just a lot of it got, well, buried right back. Say, in the Carboniferous era coal deposits.

    The somewhat interesting corolary is that if we had too _little_ outgassing, then we'd have been really screwed. It took, IIRC, some 30% CO2 in the air to thaw that snowball Earth. Too little of it, and the deep freeze might just have continued long enough to be a total extinction event. Or at the very least a 1 billion year (or maybe more) pause in life evolution until the sun output went up some more.

    2. Earth's original atmosphere was _methane_, which is a greenhouse gas about 200 times more potent than CO2. So if Venus would have been screwed by its outgassed CO2 atmosphere, the Earth should have been screwed 200 times harder (or close enough. Well over 100 times anyway.) In practice, that atmosphere on Earth just helped keep it warm enough at a time when the Sun was a lot weaker. If Venus had had a CO2 atmosphere at the time, well, it would have been a frozen snowball, quite the opposite of boiling off its water. In practice, it's a lot more likely that Venus started with a mostly Methane atmosphere too, only the hydrogen was swept away whenever some of it got broken up.

    Pretty much if you start with water, methane and CO2, and continuously lose hydrogen, you end up with just the oxygen and carbon left, which means a lot of CO2. That's likely the short story of what happened on Venus.

    3. There's an interesting extra factor there, which could have doomed Earth anyway, and that is: timing. If life or photosynthesis had started any later, for example, that methane and CO2 atmosphere would have sealed its fate. As I was saying methane is an _extremely_ potent greenhouse gas, so given enough extra time of gradually increasing solar output, it would have just boiled off the oceans. No liquid water, no life, game over.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  15. At the risk of starting a flamewar... by benhocking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find the similarities between belief in extraterrestrial life and God to be ... interesting, and I say this as an atheist who does believe that extraterrestrial life probably exists out there.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?