Slashdot Mirror
First Earth-Sized Exoplanet May Have Been Found
Adam Korbitz writes "New Scientist is reporting the extrasolar planet MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb — whose discovery was announced just last summer — may actually be the first truly Earth-sized exoplanet to be identified. A new analysis suggests the planet weighs less than half the original estimate of 3.3 Earth masses; the new estimate pegs the planet's size at 1.4 Earth masses. The planet orbits a small red dwarf star, some 3,000 light-years from here, at an orbital distance of 0.62 astronomical units, about the same distance as Venus from our sun. One significance of the planet's discovery is that it points to the probable ubiquity of smaller terrestrial planets in somewhat Earth-like orbits around red dwarf stars, the oldest and most numerous stars in the galaxy. Here is a video report from the discoverers."
Although this may be the first Earth-sized exoplanet, 335 exoplanets are already listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia.
Food for thought.
This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
Pack up all the religious nuts and MAN THE COLONY SHIP!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I'm all about getting the hell out of here!
Pluto got robbed, man!
Using standard nomenclature, the star hosting the newly discovered planet is dubbed MOA-2007-BLG-192L with MOA indicating the observatory, 2007 designating the year the microlensing event occurred, BLG standing for bulge, 192 indicating the 192nd microlensing observation by MOA in that year and the L indicating the lens star as opposed to the background star further in the distance. The planet maintains the name but adds a letter designating it as an additional object in the star's solar system, so it is called MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb.
Hello MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. How are you? We're fine thank you.
How's the weather? Would you like to play a game?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
but how do /.'ers figure out which is the actual link to the article.
Case in point this one. there are 5 different links which go to 5 different places. is there one link whihc goes to the actual article or is it just a mashup of information?
MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb ain't LV-426. If you know what I mean...
Sig this!
I know the use of the term 'Earth-sized' brings more views, but hopefully the non-science/tech people out there reading it will realize that that is just a physical comparison and not a suggestion that life is present.
e.g. Venus is also 'Earth-sized' but is highly inhabitable (for life as we know it)
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Maybe it's Cottman IV. Do you think the Chierie are there waiting for us?
Just my $0.02 worth...
That's the lamest GNAA post yet. Come on, not even the "Are you gay..." line. It's like you're not even trying.
Believe it or not, I met a GNAA member in Kuwait. Really, we were trading Iraq stories outside of the NLC Villa and I told her how I got my job through posting on /. She then revealed her "secret identity", but I think she's cool since she told my Country Manager that she hoped he'd die in a mortar attack.
As our techniques become more sophisticated, we will be able to find more planets of a comparable size to our own. Those 335 can be thought of as the 'first wave' of discovered exoplanets. Large bodies close to their parent stars. These planets are interesting for what they can tell us about how solar systems can form.
The next wave of discovered exoplanets will be smaller, say between the sizes of Venus and Neptune, and therefore far more interesting from the perspective of extrasolar life.
Why don't we figure out how inhabit to Venus and Mars first, and then look for things farther away? At 3000 light years, it's a bit too far to think of starting a settlement there.
Just because it's an earth-sized planet doesn't mean it's Earth-like. Red dwarf stars are very small (no more than half the mass of the Sun). They don't put out much energy so the habitable zones are very small and very close to the planet. Being so close to the sun makes it likely that the planet would be tidally locked (same side always facing the sun) which isn't so good for life. Finally red dwarf stars often have high stellar variation (sometimes fry you, sometimes freeze you), also not so good for life.
So exciting, but keep looking.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems
The cylons have already been there.
If you are familiar with the work of Charlie Lineweaver's group in AU, you would be aware that not only should Earth-like planets exist but that a significant number of them are older, and potentially more advanced than we are. This might then lead you to explore whether or not Matrioshka Brains (forms of civilizations significantly more advanced that our own exist.) And indirectly to an understanding that extremely advanced stellar civilizations have very different heat signatures (or detection signatures) from our own. Thus the detection of an earth-like planet is not that significant. The detection of a star going dark, signaling a civilization making a Kardashev-Type-I to a Kardashev-Type-II transition -- now that would be interesting.
Earth might be broken in some ways, but it is (most likely) a lot better environment than anything else out there. Earth is a far better starting position than Mars or whatever and fixing what's broken here would be far more achievable than trying to build a viable human-sustaining ecosystem on some other planet.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Since the strength of the gravitational field of a planet is a factor of its mass, and the gravitational pull on the surface is in direct relation to the distance from the center of the planet... could it not be possible to have a planet the size of say, Neptune, with a geological makeup similar to the Earth, that has a lower mass and therefore the acceleration at the surface is exactly 1g (as we understand it here on Earth). That is within the bounds of physics, is it not?
Or maybe the effective gravity is stronger, but the planet spins faster. Faster days as well?
The problem I guess would be the existence of a formation process that actually creates a planet with such a large surface but happens to be mostly rock instead of mostly gas (supposedly gas giants are "failed stars"). If it has a molten iron core, would it not collapse in on itself?
Interesting, imagine a planet with the surface composition and atmosphere of Earth (and supposedly biomass) but 10 or more times the surface. That would be amazing.
Earth might be broken in some ways, but it is (most likely) a lot better environment than anything else out there. Earth is a far better starting position than Mars or whatever and fixing what's broken here would be far more achievable than trying to build a viable human-sustaining ecosystem on some other planet.
On the flip side, the spin-off technologies from making a sustainable habitat off planet would probably do wonders for improving the quality of life on planet. Everything from medical technology to air scrubbing and environmental cleanup, food and nutrition to understanding of local ecology and balancing it, energy technology to waste disposal and recycling, and probably much more.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
This must be the first Slashdot post with a GNAA subject line that's been modded "informative" in years.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
immediately think of Asimov's "Nemesis" novel when they read this article?
As if there weren't enough stars below 25ly ... someone donate a better telescope plz !!!
Why is ronpaul a tag? Is he an exoplanet? I never knew that!
read some interesting stuff at mightyinteresting.com
The planet orbits its host star at a distance equivalent to that of Venus from our Sun. Because the host star is probably between 3000 and 1 million times fainter than our Sun, the top of the planet's atmosphere is likely colder than Pluto. However, planetary formation theory suggests a thick atmosphere blankets the planet, which combined with radioactive decay in the planet's interior may make it as warm as Earth.
So it could be inhabitable, it might have an ocean, and maybe there are aliens that look like E.T. living there. Maybe. But does it have a Stargate?
I'm used to size meaning volume...
Otherwise you might say a bullet is the size of 100 feathers...
I want to see video of the planet.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I don't care as long as they got good curry!
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Which just goes to show the moderators either don't read or don't agree with the guidelines. I'm all for voting things up rather than down, but in cases like this, the entire thread needs to be modded to oblivion.
Specifically, Earth biology wouldn't do well orbiting a red dwarf. Red dwarfs emit most of their energy via thermal convection, rather than (like our Sun) via radiation. This leads to lots of radiation bursts when convection cells reach the surface. At 1 A.U., no big deal. But, at an orbit close enough to keep - say - Earth as warm as it is orbiting the Sun, life would get hammered.
This isn't to say that *something* wouldn't evolve. It's just that at a basic level, it wouldn't resemble anything we're familiar with. And, given how long a red dwarf stays in the Main Sequence, there'd be billions upon trillions of years to simmer the soup 'til it was just right.
Luke, help me take this mask off
This must be the first Slashdot post with a GNAA subject line that's been modded "informative" in years.
That's because all the new heres thought GNAA is the crossover interest organization of their dreams: the GNU Astronomy Association.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Which just goes to show the moderators either don't read or don't agree with the guidelines.
No, it goes to show what people will do for a cheap +5 informative. Why did the GGP post as a reply to the flame? To be at the top of the page. And what did his link to the 300+ planets have anything to do with TFA? That's a planet, these are planets, +5 Informative in no time!
I'm all for voting things up rather than down, but in cases like this, the entire thread needs to be modded to oblivion.
Agreed.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Red dwarfs emit most of their energy via thermal convection [...] life would get hammered.
This isn't to say that *something* wouldn't evolve. It's just that at a basic level, it wouldn't resemble anything we're familiar with.
Crispy chicken?
I think finding that second home planet would be awesome. However I think its important we focus on the resources found locally. How can we exploit nearby planets and asteroids for mineral content and industrial production in order to preserve Earth. We aren't just going to be handed a new Earth when we eventually dry up all of our resources. So I think we can prolong our appetite for resources by taking from other planets that don't have delicate eco systems. There are no animals or plants that we might accidentally wipe out on the Moon.
But one has to expect the production of an argument. And one would need to take into account how many times earth has wiped out life (or at least set it back a significant number of years).
And then one needs to ascertain what fraction of planets are incomplete in this respect. To that degree the Drake Equation is incomplete.
Uhh.. pardon me, who moderated this insightful?
All low-mass stars, including the Sun and ranging up to F-Type stars (about 1.7 times solar mass) have an outer convection zone (meaning that outside the core, and up to the surface, energy is transported by convection). There's nothing 'bursty' in that mechanism.
Hard radiation of low-mass stars is generated in the corona, which is heated by magnetic reconnection events (the magnetic equivalent of a short), leading to sudden release of the energy stored in magnetic fields. This is what is called 'stellar activity': starspots, flares, X-ray radiation, ...
Some red dwarfs are indeed much more active than the Sun, many are not. Activity is generally connected to the age of a star since magnetic fields are generated by a dynamo mechanism, and stars spin down slowly as they are aging, leading to a less efficient dynamo and a decrease of activity.
I mean, normally, planets are what scientists call "very, very large". So how is it done? How can they know what a planet weighs unless they know what it's made of? It could be solid basalt, dirty ice or a mix of different materials with varying densities.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
And, given how long a red dwarf stays in the Main Sequence, there'd be billions upon trillions of years to simmer the soup 'til it was just right.
life cycle of a red dwarf is around 100 billion years. trillions of years is out of the question. heck, the universe is only around 15 to 20 billion years old
The funny thing is that you were modded funny, but this argument is one of the best there is to explain the Fermi paradox.
Assuming intelligent races evolve independently all through the universe, what is the probability that a race without a highly evolved sense of ethics would have conquered and colonized our planet long ago?
I can see only two possible answers to the problem: either the probability of an intelligent species evolving is so extremely small that we are the first to appear in the known universe (or at least in our local galaxy cluster), or FTL exists and a prime directive is in effect.
Considering the amount of exo-solar planets being found, the number of planets seem very big. Considering our own planet system wasn't one of the first to appear, and that advanced animals already existed here 65 million years ago when they were wiped out by a freak accident, one should say that the probability of being the very first intelligent species doesn't seem to be that high.
Of course, there are other factors to consider. Maybe the moon was fundamental in the process of life arising, by keeping plate tectonics active, which causes a protective magnetic field to form in the earth. We don't know yet what factors are needed for life to exist, but at this time I wouldn't disregard the FTL + prime directive argument as just "funny".
Make the upper layers out of aerogel; it's extremely low-density, has good structural strength, and can withstand the heat of compression to a significant depth.
I'm surprised the Camera didn't break.
If ever there was an argument for audio only...
and deodorant and grooming...
Do you donate to the Free Software Foundation? Are you an Astronomer?
(aaw, I just can't bring myself to do the rest of it...)
Do you donate to the Free Software Foundation?
Yes, twice.
Are you an Astronomer?
Just an amateur.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
life cycle of a red dwarf is around 100 billion years. trillions of years is out of the question. heck, the universe is only around 15 to 20 billion years old
Others with background in the field disagree: see wikipedia red dwarf reference [5], A Dying Universe: The Long Term Fate and Evolution of Astrophysical Objects. Also, The Five Ages of the Universe: Inside the Physics of Eternity.
Luke, help me take this mask off