Slashdot Mirror
Possible Extra-Galactic Planet Detected
Nancy Atkinson writes "Using a technique called pixel-lensing, a group of astronomers in Italy may have detected a planet orbiting another star. But this planet is unique among the 300-plus exoplanets discovered so far, as it and its parent star are in another galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy, to be exact. Technically, the star in M31 was found to have a companion about 6 times the mass of Jupiter, so it could be either a brown dwarf or a planet. But either way, this is a remarkable feat, to find an object of that size in another galaxy."
Intergalactic Planetary, Planetary Intergalactic?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Does anyone know if this pixel-lensing technique can help in finding earth-size planets in our local galaxy?
But what exactly does it tell us?
That there are planets around stars in other galaxies? Ok... has that been questioned? I mean, after all, we work under the assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere, so, since there are planets around our star, and planets around other stars, it shouldn't be a real surprise that there are planets around stars in other galaxies.
That we can detect them? Ok, nice to know, but what do we gain from this? I'd guess it should be easier to gain insight from local (read: In this galaxy) planets rather than trying to get any information from planets that are by some magnitudes further away.
Bottom line, is this anything but a penis comparison for astronomers who can find the farthest away planet?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's science, not scouting out new planets to live on. This discovery would support the idea that planets can be found around stars in other galaxies. Specifically, it supports the Cosmological Principle, that there's nothing particularly special about our corner of the universe. It might seem like it is obvious that there are planets everywhere in the universe, but that is hardly a given. It's about removing assumptions from our models and getting down to actual facts.
Apologies for the double post, make that the Copernican/Mediocrity principle rather than the Cosmological principle.
I was fooled by the bad title. Surely 'extra-galactic' means outside a galaxy...I envisaged a planet just floating around in inter-galactic space which would have been really interesting. This one IS in a galaxy, just not ours.
Smivs on the intertubes!
They must have found the Algol solar system! That planet must be either Palma, Motavia or Dezoris.
Milky Way != one self.
Research != looking for places to have picnics on
You = shallow.
It's a Space Station!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
I get it but you could just as easily validate that looking at the far end of the Milky Way too.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I understand the value of searching for other planets but seriously in another galaxy? WTF? Does relavancy matter?
there's an old saw about how if we were going to find extraterrestrial life that it would have found us already. it's total bullshit because we know fuck-all about anything outside of our solar system. The more we know about what's out there the better guesses we can make, which tells us where to look for the next piece of information.
Knowing something about the rate of occurrence of planets orbiting stars in other galaxies will help us confirm or deny other theories.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Andromeda is pretty far away, and anything we see happened a long time ago... bingo!
They found the Star Wars locale. If they can refine their work they could get a picture of the real Yoda.
Are you familiar with the difference between basic research vs applied research? You cannot possibly know the benefits this research will lead to. Basic research answers questions that you didn't even know enough about to understand why you would want to ask.
That said, true basic research is an idealistic notion. Research always has to have at least a tenuous connection to reality and things that may prove beneficial in the applied realm. This certainly fits that bill, though. Your threshold for applicability is too high and would stunt our scientific growth.
lol. Nice grumpy old man post but you forgot the "when I was young" part.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I get it but you could just as easily validate that looking at the far end of the Milky Way too.
No, as that still doesn't rule out the option of the Galaxy being special.
Science is done for science's sake. You would be hard pressed to find any discovery in the field of astronomy which has led to a practical discovery (I won't say there is none, because I'm sure someone can come up with an example.) Who cares about the atmosphere of Venus, or the structure of the Sun? The point is, we do science for its own sake, and when it leads to a discovery, that's nice, but hardly the goal.
Science is done for science's sake. You would be hard pressed to find any discovery in the field of astronomy which has led to a practical discovery (I won't say there is none, because I'm sure someone can come up with an example.) Who cares about the atmosphere of Venus, or the structure of the Sun? The point is, we do science for its own sake, and when it leads to a discovery, that's nice, but hardly the goal.
You speak way too soon. Humans are Macguyvers when it comes to science. You think astronomers spot a supernova and watch it supernove just for the hell of it? They use the things to test relativity, predict temperatures, build physics theories, and attempt to determine chemical makeup and elemental behaviors in such environments and all this from something that would never seem to affect us. These studies can lead to technological and medical breakthroughs here at home. It could give us a new fusion or propulsion technology, new branches to explore in math, better lasers, who knows? I challenge you to find ANY scientific finding [read: not philosophic] that humans have had no use for within 10 years of its discovery. We use every scrap of knowledge because we, as a species, have managed to create 100 problems for every discovery that will ever be made. We were born, as a species, a sentient life on a planet without libraries. Even according to the biblical religions, we were told that "by the sweat of our brow will we eat our bread" and so we began sweating. If there's knowledge to be found in this universe from the perspective of our world, we are the ones who have to do it. So it goes.
Our thirst for knowledge, however, is overdriven by our penchance for environmental mischief, and even life-benefitting discoveries cause problems on their own. Consider healthcare. We've ballooned our ability to rehabilitate a dying human so we can practically all live 100 years, but at costs greater than we, as an entire society, can truly afford for the rising number of those who rely on this technology. Where will the solution(s) to the cost issue come from? The mathmatics of economics will help. Chemistry and Biology must also come into play, somehow, to make healthcare cheaper. Will astronomy? Its runoff understandings of chemistry, physics, and the computers we've built using the mathmatics and technology we've learned to explore the stars will all come forward. To think that the only people who make scientific discoveries are those who seek science as a hobby is naive. Discovery is almost always made in seeking the answer to a problem, a question, or a mistake. Anyone who tells you that science for science's sake is a productive is either trying to get money from you without showing results or is buying into the lottery.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Look for stuff in the Milky Way at least, we'll NEVER get there unless we figure out FTL and even finding intelligent life in another galaxy sending a message to another galaxy is so impractical that dozens of generations would pass before getting a response and then responding to that you'd pass a dozen more generations.
Space is so huge that even those who realize this are off relatively often. It would take a hundred thousand generation or 10-15 times the age of our species to get a message to M31. A dozen generations would correspond to maybe 300-400 light years, about 1 percent of the distance to the centre of our own galaxy.
It's about removing assumptions from our models and getting down to actual facts.
BIZZZZZIT.... wrong.......
Our standard model is just in and of itself an assumption... ... We really know very little and assume a great deal about everything. Anyone who tells you otherwise knows even less.
How is that a contradiction? Just because we aren't there yet, and in principle will never get there, doesn't mean it isn't a direction worth going.
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.
The junk filter isn't very kind to obscure programming languages, obviously.
...I would mod you up Insightful.
If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
Lets get a good mastery of our own solar system before we go running off looking up Andromeda's skirt!
Sorry to feed the trolls, but...
So in your world, how do you plan on learning anything about our solar system if you refuse to compare it to, well, ANYTHING else in the universe? By that logic, you could claim life is everywhere in the universe, as it exists in every solar system you looked at so far (1 of 1)
Seriously, if you want any say-so on what science gets done, then you best get your ass out there and start doing some science! Till then you have less than zero rights to complain what others are doing with their time.
We have learned more about solar systems from looking at both, ours and the others, than you personally ever will hope to learn or know.. so i really don't see what justifications you have for your complaint.
If you want something specific to be done, its no ones fault but your own that it isn't being done. Get out there and do it already!
BIZZZZZIT.... wrong.......
BUUUUUZZZZZZZ WRONG MAROOOOON
Our standard model is just in and of itself an assumption... ... We really know very little and assume a great deal about everything. Anyone who tells you otherwise knows even less.
Assumption... backed with as much raw data as just about any theory in history. And more importantly, we're constantly trying to find more facts to either reinforce or disprove (and subsequently improve) our model, and removing assumptions, like the assumption that space and the laws of physics are basically the same everywhere. Which is why you are BUZZZZZZ WRONG AND A MORON BECAUSE THE GP WAS EXACTLY CORRECT IDIOT-TARD.
Sorry for that, but I really hate the "BZZZT! WRONG!" thing, especially when it's based on not even coming close to being right because you didn't even understand what was said.
The enemies of Democracy are
If this keeps up, pretty soon we'll be able to watch the Star Wars trilogy unfold through a telescope!
It may have happened "a long time ago" but since it was "far far away" the speed of light may let us catch it.
Someone call me when they're able to spot the Death Star :)
"Our standard model is just in and of itself an assumption"
I didn't know assumptions could make accurate predictions, OTOH if I assume you don't know what you're talking about....
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I always love the irony-meter overload of someone disputing the validity of the standard model via the medium of a computer, which is composed of transistors, which rely totally on the standard model being valid. I imagine irony-meters also contain transistors.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
In short, no. Going to the moon told us a lot about Earth's geology (it provided strong evidence for the Theia theory IIRC), studying the sun helps us with communications, especially protecting satellites, and that's about it. Studying Jupiter and Saturn means f*ck all. Anything else in Astronomy is irrelevant.
Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.
Well I can see practical reasons for studying Saturn and Jupiter for climate modelling and sub-nuclear gas giants. But we also can get there and back in a lifetime. Studying gas giants 500 light years away I see little value beyond "Science for Science's sake."
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
"When I was young science focused on the betterment of human life on Earth, not wasting tax payer money staring at galaxies far far away." :)
The whole point is we have a whole Milky Way to work with, putzing around Andromeda and other galaxies seems pretty low on the totem pole when public money is involved.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
The point is with over 1 billion stars in our own GALAXY I find the need to look in a neighboring galaxy moot. We can look at well over a billion stars in this galaxy to study our own solar system. Why the next galaxy?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Since we're seeing light from the far distant past, and the Andromeda galaxy is quite some ways out there, I fully expect that by using this pixel lensing technique to detect things a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, we should see X-Wing fighters soon. Or at least Star Destroyers, if X-Wings are too small to resolve at this distance. We've never been able to find evidence of these vehicles outside of the Historical Documents, because we had heretofore been looking only inside our own dinky galaxy. I feel quite certain we must now be poised on the cusp of making this breakthrough discovery.
This is exciting news! It's probably the most fascinating thing to hit /. since discovering that 2842 will be the year of the Linux desktop!
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't mean "practical use" in strictest sense, but mean Studying extragalactic planets won't tell you anything new about planets OR galaxies. Practical use in the strictest sense means "will studying extragalactic planets help make U.S. cars go faster than Japanese cars?"
I'm going by common sense and your replies #28282815 and #28292481.
All I can say is that there may be billions of planets in our own galaxy, but eventually we may want to study billions of billions of planets, study the really weird ones, the ones that are as unusual as supernovae. That's one reason to study extragalactic planets. Another reason I can think of is studying the distribution of planets within galaxies--we can get a much better overall picture of other galaxies, as we have a terrible view of our own. That's a really good reason actually, the first reason might become relevant within 50 years, the second within 10 years.
Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.
Agreed on all counts, I argue that we simply are not at the point where studying the really weird ones are needed yet.
We need to re-focus our space programs on generating some real useful results. We are drifting far too much into theoretical pursuits rather then more concrete pursuits. We risk losing more and more funding from people who can't make ends meet. They want a space program and scientists to tell them there is a point to all this that will help, perhaps not them, but their children.
Mars: Lefts get up there pronto and find if there is life or not. If not let us hustle quick to get space travel inexpensive enough so we can store nuclear waste in a really deep mine shaft on Mars. Get private industry strip mining the planet for resources and reduce mining needs here on Earth. Thank kind of pursuit.
Studying Jupiter I would find is far more likely to result in insights that are more useful then studying a gas giant in the next galaxy over.
The Ivory tower is getting a tad off course in why we pursue the sciences.
I feel we are over reaching in our study of astronomy. We need to step back and get some mastery of our back yard before we can turn our attention beyond our own solar system.
I'll make you a deal, once we have a manned outpost on Pluto we can stare at far off galaxies all we want! ;) We'll be waiting at least 10-40 years at that point for out sub-light probes and rovers to reach the next nearest solar system.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-