Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Search For Earth-Like Worlds Focuses On Sun's Siblings

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-in-the-family dept.

astroengine writes "The search for 'Earth-like' worlds just became even more Earth-like. Researchers from the University of Turku, Finland, have begun the search for the Sun's siblings in the hope that they may play host to exoplanets. Since these stars 'grew up' in close proximity to our Sun inside a stellar nursery some 4.5 billion years ago, they may have shared more than just star-building materials. Through the biology-spreading hypothesis 'panspermia,' they may have also shared the basic building blocks for life. Two sibling candidates have now been found and the researchers hope to survey the two stars — which contain similar metals and are of a similar age to our Sun — for bona fide Earth-like worlds. Could these worlds have life? If they do, extraterrestrial life may have more in common with us than we ever imagined."

16 of 64 comments (clear)

  1. Panspermia by b0bby · · Score: 2, Informative

    Panspermia, not pansermia.

  2. The TV-Theory of Why We Can't Find Life... by dryriver · · Score: 4, Funny

    Our TV broadcast signals reached them years ago... They saw Reality TV programs like "Keeping Up With The Kardashians", "Big Brother Austria" and "MTV Teenage Cribs". Horrified, they quickly hid their planets from view with giant cloaking devices, hoping that the Earthlings never find them... ever...

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:The TV-Theory of Why We Can't Find Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      If a superluminal (or similar) alien society were to first encounter our civilization by our TV transmissions, I anticipate they would be initially intrigued and approach. As they got closer (and thus more recent broadcasts), they would study the sitcoms to understand human behavior and revel at some of the educational content. A few light-years closer and the sitcoms are going downhill, Elmo appears on Sesame Street, and the aliens start growing concerned. A little closer and reality TV sets in, the aliens write off the planet as 'lost potential' and resume their search for the Higgs Boson.

    2. Re:The TV-Theory of Why We Can't Find Life... by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      They're going to send warships when they find out that there is no season 3 of "Pushing Daisies".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:The TV-Theory of Why We Can't Find Life... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly. The old shows like The Twilight Zone and Star Trek (TOS) will intrigue them and make them very interested in humans. When they get close enough to watch Jerry Springer, they're going to either decide our civilization has gone down the tubes, or that we need to be invaded.

      At this point, I think occupation by intelligent aliens is probably preferable to ruling ourselves.

    4. Re:The TV-Theory of Why We Can't Find Life... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      Exactly. The old shows like The Twilight Zone and Star Trek (TOS) will intrigue them and make them very interested in humans. When they get close enough to watch Jerry Springer, they're going to either decide our civilization has gone down the tubes, or that we need to be invaded.

      At this point, I think occupation by intelligent aliens is probably preferable to ruling ourselves.

      Yes, because aliens have the same taste, opinion and morals as you the enlightened human. Xenopsychology is a difficult field with a sample of ... zero.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    5. Re:The TV-Theory of Why We Can't Find Life... by Ep0nym0us · · Score: 3, Funny

      They actually went back home to get MORE warships when they found out what happened to Firefly.

  3. Under the street light by icebike · · Score: 2

    Isn't this akin to looking for your lost keys under the street light because its brighter there?

    It would seem that finding life on planets around red dwarfs is just as likely, even if we have no direct experience with life on such planets.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Under the street light by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, the idea is that life like ours is probably more likely in star systems that resemble our own, on planets that resemble our own. We're less likely to find planets resembling our own around red dwarfs.

    2. Re:Under the street light by drainbramage · · Score: 2

      It might be more like the way a drunk uses the light post.
      More for support than illumination.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    3. Re:Under the street light by similar_name · · Score: 2

      We can only make assumptions based on what we know. If we take all of the planets that we have ever found life on they are overwhelmingly like Earth (okay they are Earth). Point being you might as well start with what you know even if it is just one data point.

    4. Re:Under the street light by icebike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And its easier to see under the street light.

      QED.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Under the street light by steelfood · · Score: 3

      Your analogy still fails.

      It's certainly easier to see under streetlights. But you're not looking for your set of keys that you lost under these streetlights. To look for keys you lost is making the presumption that the keys exist, and that you lost them under the streetlight. In your analogy, you're looking for something specific, a thing you can attach a proper noun to.

      What they're doing is more like looking for dicarded chewing gum. You think it exists. You're not looking for any specific piece of chewing gum (though you may be limiting your search by only looking for the red ones). You're looking under the streetlights because it's easier to find what you're looking for there.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  4. billions of worlds with life by schlachter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are probably billions of worlds with life...and probably millions of worlds with intelligent life...yet the best we can probably ever do is find indirect evidence of their existence. Makes me kind of sad. Still we should continue trying.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:billions of worlds with life by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      With Active SETI we might be able to find more than indirect evidence. EM waves can travel a lot faster than any spaceship we could build. For systems only 100 ly away it would take at least 200 years for a reply and there is no guarantee that they are listening in the microwave or visible spectrum. They may be so advanced that radio or laser communication would be the equivalent of trying to communicate with smoke signals. Clearly it's still a long shot, but a lot less of one than with passive SETI, which relies on getting massively lucky.

      If we really wanted to we could build a galaxy-scale microwave beacon for less than the cost of a manned mission to Mars. By galaxy scale I mean targeted, directional radio pulses powerful enough to reach the galactic center. A pulsed laser would have fewer beam spread problems, but I don't think we have any lasers powerful enough to travel that distance while still being detectable.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    2. Re:billions of worlds with life by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      There are more than likely trillions of habitable planets. It's not a scarce resource, so there's no motivation for an invader to waste incredible resources invading us when they can go set up shop on other planets that don't have any species capable of self-defense.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank