Slashdot Mirror


Finding Twin Earths Is Harder Than We Thought

Matt_dk writes "Does a twin Earth exist somewhere in our galaxy? Astronomers are getting closer and closer to finding an Earth-sized planet in an Earth-like orbit. NASA's Kepler spacecraft just launched to find such worlds. Once the search succeeds, the next questions driving research will be: Is that planet habitable? Does it have an Earth-like atmosphere? Answering those questions will not be easy. 'We'll have to be really lucky to decipher an Earth-like planet's atmosphere during a transit event so that we can tell it is Earth-like,' said Kaltenegger. 'We will need to add up many transits to do so — hundreds of them, even for stars as close as 20 light-years away.'" The abstract of their paper offers a link to the complete paper as a 17-page PDF; here is a short description from 2007 of the same researchers' work, outlining the type of spectral signature that an Earth-like atmosphere would be expected to show.

15 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Build in a FTL drive and have Starbuck magically... oh fuck it.. what a cop out. :\

    1. Re:Solution: by collinstocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, please. This was superseded by the Bistro drive years ago! It gets rid of all that mucking about with improbability. Much safer.

  2. In effect, what they are saying, is by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that it will take hundreds of years to tell if they are truly Earth-like. And that is complete nonsense.

    Once we find a sufficient collection of candidate planets using this instrument, we can devise a different device/experiment to narrow down whether they are Earth-like. That should take maybe a few years to ten years.

    That is more-or-less the pattern we have been following, and it has been successful so far. I see no reason to change.

    1. Re:In effect, what they are saying, is by Vectronic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...and it has been successful so far. I see no reason to change."

      Has it? Can we really be sure that the current method is accurate in ruling out earth-like and non-earth-like?

      I'm not really disagreeing with you, just not so sure that it's 100% accurate (which is ideal, but not exactly realistic). To me this sounds like they are intentionally thwarting the idea, so the public will go "well shit, guess we're trapped here for 300 more years" kinda thing.

      Current method seems fine, applied to the new equipment. Keep searching, monitor the ones we already assume are earth-like, and when we figure out a way to do something about it (wormholes, etc) we pick the best candidate at that time, and go for it, if that fails, or if it takes longer than the time to build/induce/etc the next method of travel/communication, we head for the second candidate, etc... this "new" method seem to suppose that we won't be able to do anything about it for 200 more years, so we have the time to piss around with hundreds of tests, when we should probably assume it'l be possible next year, kinda like "Year of Linux on the Desktop", may never happen, but why can't it happen next year? Just because you may not succeed, doesn't mean you should't try.

    2. Re:In effect, what they are saying, is by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From what I can tell in a brief skim, it really does pose a fundamental limit given current technology. The problem is that with the largest mirror we can imagine getting up into space, and with the highest sensitivity sensors, the signal-to-noise ratio is still too low to get a usable measurement without taking hundreds of measurements.

      They plan to detect the chemicals in the atmosphere by measuring the absorption bands in the starlight as some of it passes through the atmosphere. This is presumably going to be a lot more sensitive than trying to detect the light from the planet directly, since you have a lot more photons to carry the information. The signal to noise ratio in this case is really limited by the unfortunate fact that light energy is discretized and you can't make finer measurements than a single photon. Thus a large mirror with a high-quantum efficiency (95%) sensor, is really the best you can do.

      The only hope to improve this is to either get bigger mirrors, which really depends on improving space access and is unlikely to give order of magnitude improvements, or to implement an as yet unrealized method that is able to get more information. If it were a problem of angular resolution there are plenty of interesting tricks you could use to improve it. Unfortunately I can't think of anything better, and it doesn't seem anyone else has yet either. Of course, that doesn't mean no one will... but its not as simple as just designing the next mission.

      Actually... random 3:30 am idea... if you did something in thermal-IR, and measured the absorption of the blackbody emissions of the planet by the atmosphere you might be able to get something working. The intensity would be a lot lower than looking at the stars light, but the dimming due to absorption would be much larger percentage-wise... although it would take some heavy math to show if it would actually give you a better SNR. Of course, there are plenty of holes here: among other things, my knowledge of atmospheric chemistry and absorption is very limited, and this would all depend on being able to resolve the star separate from the planet, and would thus rely on some complicated interferometric methods....... and you'd have to block out the star light to be able to get the planet light as anything more than noise... and probably the number of photons in thermal IR from a planet are too low to be able to even see it on its own... but maybe I'm wrong and it could work, or something else can.

    3. Re:In effect, what they are saying, is by forand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IAAP (I am an astro-physicist) and while I would love to agree with you, I cannot. The problem is not that we do not know how to get a quick measurement the problem is that is would take huge sums of money as well as very significant technological improvements.

      Science is being limited much more by funding and physical constraints. Current ground based telescopes are operating very near the quantum limit and space based observatories are expensive to the point of making them infeasible.

      All in all I think that pointing a few telescopes at a given object for long periods of time for a total cost far exceeding that of building a better solution is the path that is being (and will continue to be) pushed on the scientific community. The prices tags for what we want to know are so large and budgets tend to be sabotaged by political agendas as to make it appear that we are incapable of doing science for a reasonable price.

  3. Important distinction: by RyanFenton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's an important distinction between it being hard to find an earthlike planet, and there not being an earthlike planet to find at all.

    Our mechanisms for finding planets are all in wobbles in the wavelengths from the light of stars. And because of that, we tend to only see the big wobbles, because small wobbles tend to get lost in the noise.

    It would be nice if we could shine a flashlight and get a real look out there, but in most cases, we'd never see what we shone light upon in our lifetimes.

    The universe is a HUGE freakin place, filled mostly with stuff we can't get a good clear look at yet.

    Entire worlds like ours are are both all we know, but at the same time, are too small for us to even notice in the grandness just outside our atmospheric window.

    Ryan Fenton

  4. Re:As much as I'd love to find another Earth... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm fairly certain that the little green men, ticked off after years of being depicted as scrawny, bug-eyed, space-faring bobbleheads, will just come in rayguns blazing, but the machines, prizing efficiency and precision above our human failings, would probably arrive and play muzak with a pre-recorded voiceover telling us that our death is important, and would we please wait.

    Is being blasted into your component molecules by unimaginably powerful energy beams really more distressing than being put on hold?

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  5. Time difference by istartedi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course, it will only be possible to tell if it was Earth-like X number of years ago. Since there are only a few stars within 100 light years, X will usually be more than 100. In the meantime, there could have been a planet killing asteroid, or an advanced civilization could have nuked itself. So, we can only really find "twin Earths" from the past. We'll never actually know what it's like until we go there...

    ...actually, even that's not true, in the sense that "we" means everybody on Earth. Only the travelers will know it's true. Earthlings will have to wait for the return trip or signal, to tell them that it *was* true. Even then, for most stars it would be your great-great-great.... children receiving the signal.

    Bottom line? The Universe's speed limit sucks. Where's the fuzzbuster?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Time difference by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the range of 20lyrs there are about 100 stars, in the range of 250lyrs about 260000.

      See: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  6. Re:Wrong Approach? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't think the idea is to find a new place for us to live. Obviously, our ability to take advantage of such a planet is incredibly limited.

    Rather, its to understand what the possibilities for life outside our planet are. Putting it in simplest terms, its working to get experimental data for some of the coefficients in the Drake equation.

  7. Re:NASA needs to latch onto this. by saiha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We don't have the technology for any type of hibernation space travel now, which is why I think its so important to follow these types of research. Even if it takes 100000 years to travel to a new planet, that's pittance compared to what it took for current level sentient life to develop on Earth.

  8. Re:Wow! by Jurily · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Second, even if they did, how in the world do you conclude that would be "less distressing"?? One does not follow from the other.

    Well, duh. If they have advanced AI, they probably have internet as well. Which means we can view alien porn while we're being wiped out.

  9. Life... by nscott89 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to theories of what the earth's atmosphere was like before life flourished, the atmosphere was full of CO2 and nitrogen. There was no oxygen. According to our understanding of the earth 4 billion yrs ago, the earth would be a VERY different place today if there were no life here because oxygen is a byproduct of photosynthetic life. I theorize that the moment we find a planet like ours, we will have found life on another planet.

  10. Bullets vs. Energy beams by firmamentalfalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bullets hurt people because of human blood circulation (loss of blood) and the size of our organs (heh). If robots were built differently or little green men evolved differently, bullets would most likely be ineffective. There is no reason that there is only one wire connecting processor to leg and opening one loop should not hurt the other parts of the circuit. Also, there is almost no reason why the processor needs to be 15 cm big, or the leg motor has to take up the whole length of the leg. There is also no reason why the robots or green guys have to be human size.

    However, as long as they are still made of molecules, high amounts of energy should still be able to separate the molecules that they are composed of, and hopefully eliminate them.