Slashdot Mirror


Earth-Like Planet That Could Sustain Life Found

astroengine writes "An exoplanet, 20 to 50 percent the mass of Earth, has been discovered 20 light-years away and it appears to have all the ingredients conducive to sustaining life. It has enough gravitational clout to hold onto an atmosphere and it orbits well within the 'Goldilocks Zone' of its parent star. However, it would be a very different place to Earth; it is tidally locked to its star, creating one perpetual day on the world. Interestingly, this may also boost the life-giving qualities of the exoplanet, creating stable temperatures in its atmosphere."

34 of 575 comments (clear)

  1. Annddd.... by Codename+Dutchess · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is where I stopped reading:

    "Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say that the chances for life on this planet are 100 percent. I have almost no doubt about it," Steven Vogt, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at University of California Santa Cruz, told Discovery News.

    Chances are 100%. Almost no doubt.

    1. Re:Annddd.... by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His argument doesn't really hold water. Sure, once you have life that can survive on a planet it's a bitch to keep it away from anywhere, but there's no guarantee that you'll get that life to begin with.

    2. Re:Annddd.... by SETIGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is where I stopped reading:

      That's a very appropriate point to stop. To paraphrase Clarke: "When a senior scientist tells you something is impossible, they are likely to be wrong. When a senior scientist tells you something is certain, they are likely to be wrong. When a senior scientist tells you something may be possible, they are probably correct."

    3. Re:Annddd.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say it doesn't hold water because... well, he simply doesn't have enough information at this point.

      Indeed. From the Bad Astronomy blog:

      However, this does not mean the planet is habitable, or even very Earthlike. It may not even have any water on it at all. For now, we can't know these things, so beware of any media breathlessly talking about life on this planet, or how we could live there.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Annddd.... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is an argument to be made that because of the very physics of the universe that life itself may be not only inevitable but practically guaranteed. This statement is made with consideration of organic chemistry and the pervasiveness with which hydrocarbons not only exist but seem to interact and react to other hydrocarbons. Carl Sagan was the biggest proponent of this hypothesis, that the physical laws of the universe predispose the creation of life. If the hypothesis is correct, that hydrocarbons are so common throughout the universe (which they are) and that their interaction to form amino acids and the basis of life itself is the end result of the laws of the universe (supposition at best) then if a planet is the right temperature, has water and carbon then life should form. (note mars isn't warm enough and has no free water and Venus is way way to warm, but Titan is literally covered in lakes of liquid hydrocarbons)

      I agree the guy is a bad scientist for making such a claim, but if you believe this line of reasoning then if you can find a star with planets in the habitable zone, the right size, with water and enough carbon then you will have life "guaranteed". They are just on the cusp of having enough technology to see earth size planets, I think it will be just a mater of time till they can spectrograph the light bouncing off the planet and can find out which ones have oxygen in the atmosphere. Once you find oxygen you know you have life, at least minimal enough life to create free oxygen which can't exist without life because of it's highly reactive nature. I believe Carl was right, that life is an inevitable consequence of the universe, but until we have a better understanding of exosolar planets and that our solar system(and the earth itself with it's super-sized moon and high rotation) isn't unique we don't have the ability to say life is guaranteed anywhere and that's what makes his assertion so silly even if he believes Carl's hypothesis.

      It's an interesting area, because you could test the theory. With some massive expenditures of cash it would be possible to stop the run away greenhouse effect on Venus. Once the planet cooled it would rapidly lose much of it's excess atmosphere and attain a condition not that much different than the early earth except for the very slow rotation and lack of a moon. That test would then prove whether the moon (tidal forces) and fast rotation (short nights) were special or essential in the creation of life. If those two variances are important than life could still be quite rare even with the universal predisposition to life from the right physical circumstances. It's been argued that life first started in the tidal pools on earth, without tides you don't get the periodic flooding that life in the current tidal pools needs to survive. Whether life can survive nights that last multiple days or even weeks is another argument that has little to no evidence to support.

      Anyway, I don't agree with the scientists affirmation but I do understand why he would believe so strongly that life is guaranteed if the conditions are right.

  2. Re:How can they tell its tidally locked? by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an electrical engineer, I feel I have a fairly firm grasp on how people figure out a lot of these seemingly extremely complex things.

    Magic.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  3. Only 20 light years??? by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    20 light years is millimeters of astrophysical distance.

    It amazes me we have been observing space so long and yet we only now have detected this planet.

    It just goes to show how incredibly likely it is to find planets like Earth everywhere in the galaxy.

    1. Re:Only 20 light years??? by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      20 light years is millimeters of astrophysical distance.

      It amazes me we have been observing space so long and yet we only now have detected this planet.

      This just goes to show you the difference in difficulty between finding a Jupiter-sized planet and an Earth-sized planet.

    2. Re:Only 20 light years??? by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And while 20 light years might be small by astronomical standards, human beings haven't even been two light *seconds* away from the earth.

      FWIW, Voyager 1 is about 14-15 light-hours away now.

      Something to consider, though - not all radiation is the evil, hazardous, cancer-causing flesh-melting variety. Light is radiation, which is, well what they'd been using to study this thing. The shallow end of the details pool can be had here(pdf).

      Also, they're not just blindly poking around at random bits of cubic space - they're starting with stars, eh?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Only 20 light years??? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Funny

      "20 light years is millimeters of astrophysical distance."

      Nope, it's 20lys. Astronmers rarely measure interstellar distantances in mm due to the astronomical numbers it involves.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  4. Summary is wrong. by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary is incorrect. The exoplanet has "a mass three times larger than Earth's", not 20% to 50%

    1. Re:Summary is wrong. by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the two planets have similar density, then the mass ratio is simply the ratio of the volumes. Volume of a sphere is 4 pi R^3/3. Thus the volume ratio of the two planets is (R + x)^3/R^3 = 1 + 3(x/R) + 3(x/R)^2 + (x/R)^3. If you plot that function, you find that this ratio is between 2 and 3 when (x/R) is between 0.25 and 0.45, so that R + x is about 25%-45% bigger than R.

    2. Re:Summary is wrong. by meerling · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who cares about volume or density at this point as both the summary and the article specify mass. The summary says 20%-50% the mass of Earth, while the article says 3x the mass of Earth, that would be 300%. No matter how you look at it, the summary screwed up big time.

      Sorry, but your argument is like calculating the seating capacity of a car when the articles in question are discussing the top speed.

  5. Time dilation woes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My math might be a little off, but if we accelerated at g half-way there and decelerated at g for the rest of the way, it would only take a ship about 6.04 years to get there. But thanks to Einstein ruining all our space travel fun with relativity, we of us left on Earth would think the journey took 21.86 years. So there and back would seem like 43.7 years to us.

    1. Re:Time dilation woes. by Drishmung · · Score: 5, Informative
      Assuming the vessel had the mass of the space shuttle, at 1g the energy required to do that would be approximately 2,304,558,096 times the Nagasaki A-bomb.

      m = 104,328kg
      a = g = 9.80665ms^-2
      20ly = 1.89E+17m
      Nagasaki A-bomb = 80TJ.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    2. Re:Time dilation woes. by zeropointburn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The lorentz factor is only 1.4 at 0.7c. The relativistic doppler effect would then be:
      z= 1.4(1+v/c)-1
        = 1.4(1.7)-1
        = 1.38

        This is enough redshift to push yellow into the near infrared and to make a medium blue into a medium red... One reasonable estimate of the intergalactic energy density is about 1.8 eV per cm^3. Let's assume a vastly oversized vessel with 25m^2 area in the direction of travel. 1 m^3 is 1x10^6 cm^3, so we encounter 1.8x10^6 eV per m^3 swept. With our 25m^2 surface, we sweep 4.5x10^7 eV per meter of travel. At 0.7c, we travel ~ 2.1x10^8 m/s. Neglecting some ramifications of relativity, we arrive at a figure of roughly 9.45x10^15 eV/s (*1.602x10^-19 j/eV), or 1.51x10^-3 watts (that's 0.00151 watts or about 1.5 milliwatts). I generate more heat than that by breathing, and these numbers are based on a velocity far exceeding 0.2c and a spaceship nosecone the size of a small building. Where exactly is the scary radiation coming from?

        Matter is another story entirely, as even interstellar gas and dust will generate enormous heat through impact. For very small particles, it is likely that some form of ionizing beam (perhaps in combination with a powerful magnetic field) could be used to sweep out the craft's immediate path. Whether or not this would work for something as large as a micrometeorite (or worse, some big chunk of rock) is questionable. Either way some manner of electromagnetic funnel or wedge becomes necessary if only to avoid debris, and may as well be adapted to collect reaction mass.

        As for getting up to speed, use your supply of antimatter to catalyze deuterium fusion. Keep your deuterium in the form of hydrocarbons, or perhaps as water ice. If that doesn't do the trick for you then bring along a good supply of transuranics and blast it with antiprotons.

        The truly difficult part of such a trip is navigation. Even now, with our best technology put to the task, we still have unexpected collisions with space junk. Finding and avoiding all potentially hazardous masses along the flight path with enough time to avoid collision (and enough power to maneuver) is a staggering task. Even if you have a fuel scoop there is no way your scoop could deflect a marble at those speeds, let alone a rogue planetoid with a very low albedo.

      --
      -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
  6. Life (?) by tanujt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just 20 light years away is good news! One thing that always bothers me when I read about E.T. life, is the fact that we get excited when we find water or an Earth-like atmosphere somewhere, thinking there should/might be life there. We should factor in the possibility that life may evolve entirely differently from us, without requiring water or nitrogen/oxygen. In that case though, we can't really know how it will have evolved as we have no reference of evolution other than ours. So let's wait, or just go there as soon as we can as aliens.

  7. Re:why do stable chances increase the likelyhood? by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at where the most biodiverse regions are on Earth. They are in the equatorial zone, where the climate is stable.

  8. Venus and Mars by AJWM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Venus and Mars are also rocky "Earthlike" planets orbiting roughly in the habzone ("goldilocks" zone).

    I'd like to see truly terrestrial planets as much as (more than, probably) the next guy, but I think the reportage here is a bit hyped. Especially given a ~3x mass, that gives it roughly 1.44x the surface gravity (and higher likelihood of a Venus-like atmosphere).

    --
    -- Alastair
  9. Re:Humans are so fragile...if only we were hardier by cosm · · Score: 5, Informative

    genetically modify humans to live in a wider variety of environments

    That would never make it through the intergalactic genetic engineering subcommittee. Their chest-pumping and rhetoric would stop it before it hit the hull floor.

    (Posted from the year 2089, see you guys soon! The future is great, but the space-beer is a little watered down.) Yankees win in 66, America is nuked by Eskimos in 70, and 89 is to be the year of the Linux holodeck neural interface.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  10. remember we are using 20 yr old data by bl8n8r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    intriguing is the fact that we are studying the planet as it was 20 years ago, not as it is present day. In roughly 100 years we've managed to screw up this planet to no end. Things could be quite different on gliese 581g at this moment and we would not know it. Assuming we could travel at the speed of light and made it there in 20 years, the inhabitants may have already turned most of the planet to concrete and smog. If it is indeed inhabited.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:remember we are using 20 yr old data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      intriguing is the fact that we are studying the planet as it was 20 years ago, not as it is present day. In roughly 100 years we've managed to screw up this planet to no end. Things could be quite different on gliese 581g at this moment and we would not know it. Assuming we could travel at the speed of light and made it there in 20 years, the inhabitants may have already turned most of the planet to concrete and smog. If it is indeed inhabited.

      It's intriguing to me that anyone would call cities "screwing up" the planet. We've transformed the environment into one that is incredibly comfortable for our species to live in. There has never been a better time. The real argument that we're screwing up the planet involves this state being unsustainable, not the fact that we've achieved it.

  11. I work with 2 of the authors by Theory+of+Everything · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually work quite closely with 2 of the authors of the paper that reports these results. Any questions? I'll try to respond to posts between now and 2 October.

    1. Re:I work with 2 of the authors by Theory+of+Everything · · Score: 4, Informative

      Certainly life as we know it has evolved to day-night cycles. Life here would be different. Raccoons (night-animals) would be as confused as deer (day-animals). But there isn't reason to believe they couldn't have evolved differently.

      As far as the narrow bands of tropics, this actually helps us determine that there are temperate zones. I posted the following above, but after your post, I just don't want to retype:
      "However, the great thing about this planet is that there is almost certainly a "too-hot" part, and a "too-cold" part, for humans, due to the tidal locking that you point out. However, somewhere between there, there must be a "just-right" part. This helps confirm that there is a habitable zone on the star."

      The gravitational dynamics are rather well studied, for orbital stability. This is a rather robust part of the study (which, as someone interested in many-body dynamics, a very complex subject, is always surprising to me).

      There might be some bizarre weather patterns, but there will be a region of what would be, to us humans, a comfortable region. This strongly suggests a nice region for life as we know it.

      Could life exist as-we-do-not-know-it in a different extreme environment? Maybe. But a simpler jump is to life-as-we-do-know-it being elsewhere, since we have evidence such life does exist here, so that is why finding a human-suitable environment is so promising.

      The weather might not be fun, that's for sure. But ask people in Alaska and the Mojabe---life exists nonetheless. It might be fun (or not) to be a weatherman there.

    2. Re:I work with 2 of the authors by Theory+of+Everything · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe they determined it as follows:

      The planet is close to its star.

      The planet has a fairly well known size.

      The gravitational force on the near vs. far side can be calculated based on the planet-star distance and the planet size.

      Guessing the planet is mostly rock (a very safe guess based on lots of planetary science information), we can guess how much frictional energy is lost in that differential stretching.

      Based on the elements observed in the star, we can estimate the age as billions of years old.

      The frictional forces would slow down the planet rotation much faster than billions of years. Thus, by now, it would be tidally locked.

      The key is that the planet is closer to its star than the Earth. For example, Mercury (which isn't even as close to the Sun as GJ581g is to its star) is in a 3:2 tidal lock between its orbit and rotation. The full 1:1 lock is expected for closer planets. This is the case for the Earth's Moon, which is why we always see the same side of the Moon. This tidal locking is extremely well established with the Earth's Moon.

    3. Re:I work with 2 of the authors by Theory+of+Everything · · Score: 4, Informative

      Good point!

      There is some controversy here. GJ 581 doesn't seem to be to dramatically variable. But others are. The lead of SETI wrote a recent paper claiming M dwarfs are not so active as to prevent life or even advanced life. However, this was in response to papers claiming the opposite. It's uncertain, but it seems GJ 581 is stable enough for long enough periods that life can evolve. Even our Sun isn't super stable, yet life exists. Thus ice ages, the Maunder Minimum and Mini-Ice-Age, and the like.

      The spectrum of the star wouldn't necessarily tell us about the composition of planets. Some planet-star spectrum correlations have been seen as far as whether stars have planets, but these have not necessarily been tied to causation, and certainly not to composition of the planets. We would certainly need to calibrate any such tracer first, anyways.

      The composition-age relationship for stars that you mention has more to do with the generation of stars. Stars today are made out of the waste products from the exploded material from previous stars. That material is enriched by the nuclear processes from those previous stars, meaning they start with more heavy elements. The current generation includes stars today and those from at least as long ago as 10 billion years. Beyond that you start to get to the beginnings of the universe and earlier generations of stars. So no big changes are really expected here, and the phenomenon you cite isn't currently believed to be planet-related, but rather just evolution-of-the-universe related, a very different topic.

      I don't think anything about the spectra of the star could identify water at this level of precision. Planets are a billion times fainter than their stars. The spectra had signal-to-noise ratios of order 300:1, which is impressive enough, but nowhere close to enough to see features of the planet. (If Bill Gates, the man of $60 billion, woke up tomorrow with $60x300 = $18,000 to his name, he might need to be put on suicide watch. That is the level of change we are talking about.)

  12. Success Story by zooblethorpe · · Score: 4, Funny

    According to theory, we will need the survival capabilities of the cockroach to remain on this planet.

    Well, there's lawyers covered, then.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  13. Re:And the odds of habitable aren't that great by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There's no free water - it's all a sulfuric acid haze. Spin-locked planets don't have enough tidal stress to drive plate tectonics, so there's no recycling of CO2 - all the CO2 that's in limestone, etc., that gets subducted? It gets baked out into the atmosphere instead. You end up with YAV - Yet Another Venus.

    We're here not just because we're in the Goldilocks zone, but also because we're a double-planet (earth and moon). Lots of gravitational stress to help encourage crustal slip along fault lines, and free water to help with the slippage. A runaway greenhouse effect caused by much higher CO2 concentrations converts the water to H2SO4. Once the water is gone (it's still liquid at depth even at 150C because of the pressure), the plates lock up completely, and you get Venus.

  14. Wow by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My what exciting times we live in. Just think... it has only been around 100 years since we realized the universe is organized into galaxies. Only a few hundred since we realized that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Sometimes it is hard to have faith in the future... but discoveries like this touch that small part of me that hasn't become jaded.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  15. What this isn't... by SETIGuy · · Score: 4, Informative

    First, TFS is wrong. This planet is 3 to 5 times the mass of the Earth, not 30%.

    The article also won't tell you what is speculation and what they've actually seen. The planet was detected through radial velocity measurement of the star. That pretty much means the only thing that has been measured is the planetary mass times the sine of the inclination of its orbit relative to the sun-Gl581 line. Hence the large uncertainty.

    When they talk about atmospheres they are speculating. There is no way to tell if this planet has an atmosphere, although the large mass helps the case. There's no way to tell if the planet is covered in an 100 mile deep ocean or if it is entirely dry other than by speculating based upon the composition of the host star. With no eclipses and a small planet to star distance it's going to be a while before we know for sure about either.

    When they are talking about tidal locking they are also speculating. While the planet would almost certainly be tidally locked to the star if it were the only planet in the system, it could exist in an orbital resonance with another planet that throws off the tidal locking, or it could have a large moon in close orbit, which would also do the job.

    I also haven't looked to see which version of the habitable zone definition they are using. I would suspect the run-away greenhouse to ice-line version.

  16. Re:How can they tell its tidally locked? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Informative

    there is probably some sort of maximum initial spin rate, and even given that rate the planet might be guaranteed to be tidally locked at this point.

    Glad you answered your own question. We have a good idea of what rotation rates are possible when planets form in a disk, probable rotation rates are basically a function of composition and mass (very small objects such as small moons, asteroids, and fragments are more complicated because their rotation rates are going to be affected by frequent impacts, but even then there's a limit to what gravity can hold together)

    Basically, the planet in question--Gilese 581g, is very very very old. It orbits a red dwarf star whose lifetime is in the billions of decades--20-30 billion years likely (too lazy to check for an actual figure, but it's much longer than the 10 billion years for our sun). Based on the current age of the system it (and apparently every other planet in that system, from the bottom of the wiki page on tidal locking) should already be locked.

  17. to put 20 light years in perspective... by physicsdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    20 light years is *about* 1.25 million AU. Voyager is 113 AU from the sun, in under 4 years it will be 125 AU from the sun. If we pretended Voyager 1 was heading the in right direction it would be 1/10000 of the way there. Or if we imagined that the planet was 10 meters away, Voyager has travelled 1mm of the way there. About 350000 AD, it would arrive!

  18. Re:The chances are pretty much zero by sycodon · · Score: 5, Funny

    So here I am, reading on Slashdot about two teams of astronomers with probably over 100 years of education between them, more doctorates than you can shake a sick at, who are publishing a paper in the Astrophysical Journal about this new discovery, and I find this post by tomhudson essentially calling them idiots.

    Only on Slashdot.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  19. Re:How can they tell its tidally locked? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a tautology expert, I have a fairly firm grasp when grasping things fairly firmly.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/