Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Find Solar System Like Ours
mlimber writes "The NYTimes has up a story about the discovery of a solar system that is analogous to ours. Of the 250 or so exoplanets found thus far, 'few of them are in systems that even faintly resemble our own. In many cases, giant Jupiter-like planets are whizzing around inside the orbit of Mercury,' whereas in this new system, 'a planet about two-thirds of the mass of Jupiter and another about 90 percent of the mass of Saturn are orbiting a reddish star about half the mass of the Sun, at about half the distances that Jupiter and Saturn circle our own Sun.' The researchers used gravitational microlensing to detect the planets, and two of the lead authors of the paper to be published in Science are amateur astronomers, one of whom describes herself as 'an ordinary New Zealand mother.'"
The same applies here. We're seeing a sun that's roughly half the size of our Sun with at least two planets roughly the size of some our gas giants that are orbiting it at half the distance. Since previously we've only seen stuff that would be impossible in our solar system, this is the closest we've come to it.
Now, no one is saying it's identical. The two large planets could be the only things in the system, or there could be some small rocky worlds closer in that we can't see yet. The fact that two planets that we can detect are similar in scale to two of ours could infer that there are other planets similar in scale to our own in orbits similar to our own.
There could be a Mars-size planet in orbit more like that of Venus, but because the sun is smaller and cooler it might actually be temperate like Earth. Out of what we've seen so far, this is the best hope for finding Earth-like life, or a possible colonization opportunity for humans.
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
two of the lead authors of the paper to be published in Science are amateur astronomers
Thank goodness for areas of science where "amateurs" can still make significant contributions. The other ones that springs to mind are biology and Comp. Sci. Physics, chemistry etc are out of the league of most people (myself included) where the best we can do is learn what others have already done. To be published in Science is a wonderful achievement. Kudos to them.
then again, some models predict that it had little effect on the number of asteroid/comet impacts. The reason we see a lot of systems with large, close orbiting jovian [gas giants] worlds is because they are much easier to spot- that may change in a few years with better techniques/telescopes.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Of course it is "like ours".
Astronomers are struggling with models of solar system formation which could explain the formation of our solar system. AFIK all extrasolar systems to date are so extreme that the models don't even start to work. This is the first system where the planetary distribution is comparable to ours. Remember the rocky dwarfs in our solar system represent an infinitesimal component of the mass. Don't attach too much significance to the rocks just because we happen to live on one.
The science is understanding the formation of planetary systems in which this one is very much like ours.
The science (fantasy/fiction) is discovering earth like planets themselves. I would also bet that when we get to finding earth like planets the gas giant distribution should be sol like.
There's only one feature of our Solar System that's remotely interesting: Earth. Sure, the other planets are pretty, and may hold promise as sources for raw materials and-- much later-- targets for terraforming. But what makes our solar system "like ours" is Earth, period. The rest of the planets seem completely mundane.
When I read the headline, I was somewhat shocked-- "So they finally were able to resolve an exoplanet that was small, warm, rocky and bore the signature of water?" But no, it's Yet Another Exoplanet System With Big Gas Giants.
Yawn.
While this sort of thing may be of interest to the scientists and obsessive space fans who collect lists of exoplanets, as for me, wake me when they find an exo-Earth. I'm getting bored stiff of exo-Jupiters and exo-Saturns...
Or, in other words: GAS GIANTS ARE BORING.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I seem to remember that most all the great electronic inventions of the last century were made by amateurs. You can argue that electronics is a subset of physics, but lets keep semantics out of this.
And it continues. Amateur radio operators continue to innovate and their work many times gets picked up by universities and corporations.
Yes, lots of people trot that explanation out.
However, keep in mind that our sun was named Sol in Latin, and that name was assigned long before anyone knew that the sun was just a special case of a star (namely, it's the closest star). Back when people started using Sol to refer to the Sun, it was considered a separate entity from the stars, just as the Moon (Luna) was separate from the sun.
However, now that we have hundreds of years of astronomical data proving that our sun is really not different than many other suns, I don't see a problem with calling an external star system a "solar system" just like I would have no trouble calling Phobos and Deimos a "lunar system". Sun and Moon, the English equivalents of Sol and Luna, have become genericized as we found out that our sun and moon were not special; they are just examples of common objects in the universe.
You will also note that the British seem to have no trouble confusing the word "continent" with the specific place "The Continent". This is exactly the same issue as "solar system" vs. "The Solar System", and exactly as pointless to argue about, since it doesn't hinder communication at all.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Computer programming is also very amateur friendly. Corporations that throw money into development only end up making similar copies of what already exists. The true innovation has always come from startups and no-names.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
How many solar systems and or comets must you discover to graduate from "amateur" status?
I for one look forward to reading his rebuttal in the the journal of science.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
How many solar systems and or comets must you discover to graduate from "amateur" status?
Like most things you graduate from amateur status when you start getting paid for your work.
It's only misleading to people who have a tendency to read into things more than is actually there, which is really more the fault of the reader, not the writer, and ultimately can't be helped. For example, "like ours" does not mean "identical to ours in every way", but merely that it has some common characteristics. An earth-like planet is only one of many possible characteristics that two solar systems might have in common, so although "identical to ours" would imply the existence of an earth-like plant, "like ours" in no way implies that. It doesn't even imply that such a planet is more likely in the system. A more complete description of what ways the two systems are alike would be required to conclude that. Luckily, the summary provides just such a description: the other system is like ours in the distribution and relative sizes of its gas giants relative to our own system. It correctly says the system is like ours, and correctly identifies precisely in what way it is like ours. It would take quite a bit of talent at misreading things to be misled here.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Hmmmm
You'd have to look at a lot of sky a lot of times to be able to spot most things. It's not like the first time you look at something it coughs up its secrets. I'm not even remotely surprised at the sheer scale of this.
You're looking at an enormous number of enormous things, whose timelines span an enormous amount of time. And, then you have to be able to spot differences that are barely perceptible -- like, what, way less than angstroms, right?
I'm sometimes amazed we find anything. Imagine, how many times you'd have to look at the same star to be able to know when it's going to get illuminated by a star a few thousand light years behind it, and then measure the planets around it.
It really does make my head spin at times. It really does reinforce that the universe is way bigger than we can really and truly wrap our heads around.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.