Slashdot Mirror
Kepler Spots "Perfectly Aligned" Alien Worlds
astroengine writes "When NASA's Kepler space telescope started finding planets at odd angles to their parent stars, scientists wondered if our solar system's tidy geometry, with the planets neatly orbiting around the sun's equator, was an exception to the rule. That idea can be laid to rest thanks to an innovative use of the Kepler data which aligned three planets circling the sun-like star Kepler-30 with a giant spot on the star's surface. 'The planets themselves are not all that remarkable — two giant Jupiters and one super-Earth — but what is remarkable is that they aligned so perfectly,' astronomer Drake Deming, with the University of Maryland, told Discovery News."
I'm a software engineer so my knowledge is rather limited, but I'd have assumed that the orbits of planets would tend to be in the same plane as the spinning of the galaxy, so if you look at a mostly flat galaxy, you'll find mostly aligned orbits, and if a galaxy was more... "chaotic", the orbits would be likewise less aligned in respect with each other.
I was thinking the same thing, in a limitless universe you are likely to find at least one instance of a "flat" solar system. However, in a limitless universe, there is likely a large number of "flat" solar systems.
insert inflammatory comment here!
If only mechanical engineering had some breakthrough that could let us create engines that travel at light speed but sadly even light speed wouldn't be good enough to travel the whole wonderland. I hope we don't end up just looking at all these planets like sour grapes.
The null hypothesis would say that planets could orbit the star in any method. To reject it you would have to calculate the probability that 3 separate planets would have an orbit that would allow them to cross over the same sunspot. The probability isn't high, and 3 planets might be enough data to answer it with statistical significance. I'm not claiming to say that it is or not (it would be a pain in the ass physics problem). All that I'm saying is that the data could very well be the equivalent to rolling a 99 three times in a row on a d100.
we'll show those blue freaks that unobtainium isn't fer plantin' trees on!
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
It makes perfect sense in the realm of popular statistics... thousands of reports come out saying smoking/chocolate/coffee/alcohol/etc is bad for you. Then one comes out saying that there are some positive aspects of <product>, and the world thinks "Ah. So <product> is not so bad for you after all!".
Still... in the scale of the galaxy, spotting another such system in the galaxy proves that earth isn't the _only_ one, and the chance that we've seen the only other well-aligned solar system in the galaxy is pretty small so it's fair to say there are others, probably millions of others. So it doesn't prove it's common, but at least it's probably not uncommon.
Universe is 2D.
The 3D stuff is just to milk more money!
HOWEVER, and here's the paradox: if not all stars have orbiting planets, then the number of stars with orbiting planets is less than infinite, ie, finite.
Bzzzt! Fail - thanks for playing.
Once you start playing with infinite numbers you have to be very careful with concepts like "less than" or "more than". Just because you can demonstrate that one set is in some way smaller than another infinite set does *not* demonstrate that the smaller one is finite.
Consider the set of natural numbers - 1,2,3,4 etc. This is infinite. Then consider the set of even natural numbers - 2,4,6,8 etc. Clearly there are members of the first set which are not members of the second set, and so one might be tempted to conclude that the second set is in some way smaller, and therefore by your argument, finite.
In fact one can set up a one-to-one mapping between the two sets:
12
24
36
etc. and thus both sets have precisely the same (infinite) number of members.
If I get all this "limitless/infinity" stuff correct, then, in theory, in a limitless/infinite universe there would be an infinite number of "flat" solar systems.
this is a piss-take
Yes, an utterly pathetic one. The kind of witless yammering you'd expect from a 14 year old.
I'm no fan of religion, but this kind of empty sneering does nothing to promote the adoption of reason.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Where's Larry Niven's Kemplerer rosette in known space when you need it .....
who where what when now?
But we can't set up one-to-one mapping between the allegedly infinite set of all stars, and the set of all stars without planets. We don't even know whether it would be a two-to-one mapping, or any x-to-one mapping. Some stars might have been divested of their planets by passing near other stars. There's no mathematical rule.
Moreover, it can be shown that the rational numbers (eg. 1/2, 5/9, 314/999) have precisely the same number of members as natural numbers.
it would be extremely improbable that the only other flat system would be so close to earth.
so your authority wouldn't be the same in casual observers view.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Woah, that's trippy.
Once you start playing with infinite numbers you have to be very careful with concepts like "less than" or "more than".
Numberphile has a nice video about different types of infinity: http://www.numberphile.com/videos/countable_infinity.html
The planets are merely aligned in the same plane - and not perfectly.
When I first read the headline, I was expecting to read about a ring of planets sharing the same orbit - what would be equivalent to the first stage of maneuver for the development of a niven ring or even a dyson sphere. Now that would have been exciting news.
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
if the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of stars. It follows that orbiting those infinite stars is an infinite number of planets.
"Would you like a cheese and ham Breville?"
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
> innovative use of the Kepler data which aligned three planets...
Well, in Superman III, we learned weather satellites could be used to control the weather, so why couldn't astronomy satellites be used to align planets?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
love one.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
No, but we can set up a fraction. Let's say that 1/1000 stars have orbiting planets. That would be infinity/1000, which equals infinity. Still not finite. As another commenter noted, there is a one-to-one mapping of rational numbers (3/4, 1/72, 399/12, etc.) to integers.
Or, as my sig used to say, "Space is big - really big. Better pack a lunch."
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Both numbers would be countably infinite, so there exists a 1-to-1 mapping between them. If we make a grid in 3D space, with earth in the origo, we can order the grid points. With a fine enough grid, we can them number the stars according to which grid point they are closest to. We can then number the planets lexicographically, after their stars number and their orbital period around the star. Planets sharing an orbit will give problems, but that is trivially solved as long as there is only finitely many plantes in any one orbit around any one star.
As for the x-to-one mapping, as long as x is finite or countably infinite, the result would still only be countably infitite. For finite numbers, this can be seen from the GPP examble while substituting even numbers with numbers divisible with x. For countably infinite, this is basically numbering the grid-points of a 2D-grid, which can be done in a "spiral".
This also goes for the algebraic numbers, the numbers that are roots in any polynomial.
My point is that you can't sit on your butt and create the rule, like you can between integers and fractions. You have to actually go out there and see what's there. And that's not even possible in principle, because by the time you get partway down your list, some of your previous mappings are invalidated by the fact that some systems lose planets and others gain planets.
Yes I would agree with that. But our sample of planetary system of the universe is so small that it is ridiculous to make any judgment. How many planetary system that have more than one planet that we know it exist ? 100 ? 1000 ? How many we think there is in our own galaxy ? few billions ? For few billions you need a sample of 2000 system to make any statement.
I always like introducing countable and uncountable infinities to people. The concept of one being larger than the other and that all sets of countable infinities are the same size (i.e. rational numbers, whole number, prime number, even numbers, etc) was always interesting. It is interesting watching them try to wrap their brain around that. I found that the easiest way for them to grasp the difference between countable and uncountable infinities is the difference between whole numbers and real numbers. A countable infinity will always have a finite number of elements between any two elements (whole numbers) where as an uncountable infinity will have an infinite number of elements between any to elements in the set (real numbers). What really would confuse them is that with an uncountable infinity there are an uncountable infinite number of elements between any any two elements, thus the number of elements between any two elements in an uncountable infinity is larger than a countable infinity.
Time to offend someone
It's probably a very poor attempt at stating that their orbits are coplanar, in dumbspeak. I think these three planets separately transited the same starspot as viewed from Earth, which tells us something about their orbital planes.
Don't Bogart the fish sticks
What if... C-A-T really spelled dog?
What if C-A-Ts really taste like tasty wheat?
Actually you don't. At least not if you are starting from the assumption that there are infinite stars in the first place. No matter what the process is that results in flat star systems SOMETHING caused it, that something has a probability of occurring, all probabilities can be represented as a fraction of the sample set since in this case your sample set is infinity stars and any fraction of infinity is also infinity you don't have to actually know the probability of occurrence.
Science by press release.
blah
I'm not really sure why people have trouble with any of that. All of it seems like a logical given if one accepts infinity as a valid concept in the first place.
Accepting that an infinity exists in the physical universe is the challenging part.
The alignment does not prove they were formed from a rotating disk of gas. Planets in stable orbits around a sun with great tilts will gradually shift their orbits to nearly a common plane. This is caused by their own gravity affecting each other. How fast it happens depends on things like locations of larger planets and orbital timings. Note that while this is happening, their own rotational angle does not change. So the net result is planets with rotation planes not in alignment with orbit planes. This is the other explanation for Earth's 23 degree tilt (it's orbit was 23 degrees different when formed, and gradually tugged into the existing orbital plane, leaving the rotation plane unchanged).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Possibly, but given how many people I have tried to teach that to it seems that there is a large swath that really struggle even when using the example of whole numbers vs. real numbers. I think the issue may be the abstractness of it, a countable infinity which tends to be the one most encountered still requires a fair amount of abstraction. Now introduce the concept of uncountable and some people just seem to give up or get very lost. When I first got introduced to the concept of different sized infinities I grasped it quite quickly while others struggled. Also the concept of infinity/n == infinity seemed very difficult for people to grasp even when only using countable infinities.
Time to offend someone
Any scientist wondering this should probably look up the terms selection bias and anthropic principle, and stop calling himself a "scientist."
Liberty in your lifetime
I found that the easiest way for them to grasp the difference between countable and uncountable infinities is the difference between whole numbers and real numbers. A countable infinity will always have a finite number of elements between any two elements (whole numbers) where as an uncountable infinity will have an infinite number of elements between any to elements in the set (real numbers).
This is severely misleading, as there are an infinite number of elements between any two rational numbers, yet the rational numbers are still countably infinite.
If you really want to explain it correctly, then the best way is talk about one-to-one correspondence. Having a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers is what it means to be countably infinite, and has a direct analogy to people counting with their fingers. Cantor's diagonalization argument shows why you can't count the reals, or more technically, construct a one-to-one correspondence between the reals and the natural numbers. His argument is actually quite understandable and illuminating.