Slashdot Mirror


Two Earth-Like Exoplanets Don't Actually Exist

Two suspected exoplanets, Gliese 581g and 581d, have been shown to not exist, and are instead misinterpretations of data from starspot activity. From the article: "Gliese 581g doesn't exist," said lead author Paul Robertson of Penn State University in State College, Pennsylvania. Neither, he said, does another planet in the same solar system, known as Gliese 581d, announced in 2009—less clearly hospitable to life, but still once seen by some astronomers as a possible place to find aliens. ... What's happening, they say, is that magnetic disturbances on Gliese 581's surface — starspots — are altering the star's spectrum in such a way that it mimics the motion induced by a planet. The star itself rotates once every 130 days, carrying the starspots with it; the disputed planets appeared to have periods of almost exactly one half and one fourth of the 130-day period. When the scientists corrected for the starspot signal, both planets disappeared.

15 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Get it right by Nkwe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I certainly hope that before we send a generational ship on a one way mission to check out one of these "Earth like" planets that isn't there, we get this right... Of course it would be a good plot for a movie.

    1. Re:Get it right by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      Before we sent a generation ship, we would need to know a hell of a lot more about what's going on than just a sneaking suspicion there may be a planet and it may be in the habitable zone. At a minimum, we would want to have directly imaged the planet and verified from its spectra that it has a decent atmosphere and hopefully already has life.

    2. Re:Get it right by willaien · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You joke, but, there exists a problem with that idea.

      How do you even establish a communication protocol with an entirely alien (technologically) civilization?

      We can possibly work on showing a basic data format with numbers first, but after that, what then? Send Fibonacci sequences at each other ad nauseum?

      There's some interesting ideas, but, how would we even move beyond mere shouting math at each other? How would we establish even a more advanced data format capable of handling characters? And then, how would we develop an intermediary language?

      All of this with hundreds of years in gaps between sending and receiving communications, at that. It's not just hard, it's going to be effectively impossible within the lifespans of the people who sent the first message.

    3. Re:Get it right by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      And even after all of that, how do we know that, once we send a generational ship, their civilization will even be standing by the time we get there. Or since the generation that invited us will (possibly) be long dead, will their descendants still be keen on the idea of a bunch of ship born ape descendants arriving on a one way trip to consume resources? Since those on a generational ship will be more or less technology stagnant and isolated, who knows what kind of superstitions they may develop, or how primitive they would seem to be once they arrived.

    4. Re:Get it right by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Every baby (with perhaps a tiny number of exceptions) on the planet learns language. Nearly every "higher" species has some language or communication. I'm making the assumption that they are able to teach their babies communication. You are assuming they have no linguistic capabilities at all. That seems absurdly improbable for a civilization capable of communicating with us.

  2. Yeahhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I love physics, but I've really felt like the exoplanet thing has been irresponsibly laid on pretty thick for the common man (mostly by scientific media and then mainstream media, in order to sell copies/ads, of course).

    There's a lot of zeal in announcing newly found planets, pontificating on their atmospheres and doing up artists impressions and whatnot. It's just not good to take back that type of information and say "ah shit, it was actually just a sunspot". It's really the only true vector of doubt in the religious mind - when science corrects itself. This type of stuff does not help.

    But then again, it's mostly the mainstream media who create such a house of cards.

    1. Re:Yeahhh by kenwd0elq · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ditto here. The "New planet may support life!!!! meme is so COMPLETELY overblown based on a telescope that detects occultations, and doesn't generate any images. The "artist's renderings" were way off in fantasyland, entirely unsupported by the data.

    2. Re:Yeahhh by P51O45YNDgCVY · · Score: 2

      It's just not good to take back that type of information and say "ah shit, it was actually just a sunspot".

      You are wrong, exactly this is the power of science, that it can correct itself. In fact, this is always exciting because you found something new, you can use this in future to recheck data and thus improve findings. In science you can challenge findings, learn and improve. Religion just stays as it is.

  3. Or maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some aliens came along and vaporized them with a futuristic weapon?

    1. Re:Or maybe by linearz69 · · Score: 2

      Or the DOD just finished its Death Star?

  4. Re:Great headline, guys by iggymanz · · Score: 2

    there are also an infinite number of you that don't exist, and one that does.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Re:I always wonder about things like this by dltaylor · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is why most discoveries are double-checked by someone else.

    Whether it is table-top cold fusion, stem cells, planets, or the Higgs boson, you publish "we found X by doing Y". Someone else tries and does or doesn't succeed. If they do, it adds evidence to your discovery. If they don't, they go back through your "Y" and see where it doesn't add up for them. In this case, it was found that "Y" didn't take into account "Z" (rather like the "faster than light" neutrinos a few years back where the timing signal was slowed by a weak electical coupling).

    Additionally, there's a lot of data coming from the space-based and, still, Earth-based, telescopes. A data item can show up after you've started your analysis that you didn't know at the time, for example, the stellar rotation period for which to account might not have been known.

    On the plus side, this will require all of the to-be-published research to check for this factor, reducing that type of erroneous reporting.

  7. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Before you 3D print your FTL private colony ship, better check twice.

  8. I felt a great disturbance in the Force... by Biff+Stu · · Score: 3, Funny

    as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.