Slashdot Mirror


Scientists May Have Discovered the First Planets Outside the Milky Way (washingtonpost.com)

Using data from a NASA X-ray laboratory in space, Xinyu Dai, an astrophysicist and professor at the University of Oklahoma, detected a population of planets beyond the Milky Way galaxy (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). The planets range in size from Earth's moon to the massive Jupiter. From the report: There are few methods to determine the existence of distant planets. They are so far away that no telescope can observe them, Dai told The Washington Post. So Dai and postdoctoral researcher Eduardo Guerras relied on a scientific principle to make the discovery: Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein's theory suggests light bends when tugged by the force of gravity. In this case, the light is coming from a quasar -- the nucleus of a galaxy with a swirling black hole -- that emits powerful radiation in the distance. Between that quasar and the space-based laboratory is the galaxy of newly discovered planets. The gravitational force of the galaxy bends the light heading toward the Milky Way, illuminating the galaxy in an effect called microlensing. In that way, the galaxy acts as a magnifying glass of sorts, bringing a previously unseen celestial body into X-ray view. In a university news release, Guerras had a less formal way to describe the complicated process: "This is very cool science."

36 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Mandatory Funny Ignorant comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And still, i can't find my iPhone charger !!

    1. Re:Mandatory Funny Ignorant comment by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Would that be in the Goatse Nebula or Goatse Galaxy?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  2. Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by Camembert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many of us are so jaded and cynical these days, yet no matter how you look at it, this is indeed very impressive. It is like standing at the coast in France and noticing a butterfly in New York. Very cool.

    1. Re: Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Yep. Itâ(TM)s mind boggling just how advanced weâ(TM)ve become in our scientific endevors. We can detect planets at unimaginable distances , and particles unimaginably small. Science works folks, we ought defend it

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by DrTJ · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, this is far, far, far more impressive than that.

      These planets are (according to the article) 3.8 billion lightyears away, i.e. 3.5*10^22 km. At that distance, a planet appears to be *extraordinarily* small.
      If we take your France - New York example (Paris-New York = 5681 km), an earth-sized planet (included in the size range mentioned in the article) would - from Paris - have an apparent size of 2*10-15 m.

      I.e. the same size as an alpha particle (Helium nucleus).

      "This is very cool science" - Indeed!

    3. Re:Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I recently started to do a "fun" calculation with energy when it comes to those kind of distances.
      First I imagine a radio transmitter or a laser with a frequency and an energy output, for example 50kW and 1MHz.
      The output power divided by the frequency times planck's constant gives us the number of photons emitted per unit of time.
      Divide this value by the area of a spherical surface and set the radius to the distance we are talking about, like 3.8 billion light years in this case.
      Now we have the number of photons that hits a surface area every time unit.
      So if you place an antenna with a surface area of one square mile over there it will receive one photon from the KOMO radio station every million years or so.

      Increasing to signal strength to 1.21 gigawatts won't really do much to make the signal detectable, neither will directing the signal to a few millidegrees.

    4. Re:Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is like that. In fact, it is very much like that which makes it suspicious since it is impossible to stand on the coast in France and notice a butterfly in New York. What they are doing are not directly observing, they are speculating based on some evidence. It is just speculation and educated guesses.

    5. Re:Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      It is like standing at the coast in France and noticing a butterfly in New York.

      I suspect that probably is an easier undertaking. This is seriously cool.

    6. Re:Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      I remember one of my favorite computer games from the 1990s was Masters of Orion II, and classic galaxy exploration and colonization game. One of the things was no matter how advanced your technology to find if a star system had a planet around it, you had to send a ship to that system. Only a few years after that game came out, the detection of extrasolar planets started being a thing and really took off. And now we're finding planets in other galaxies. The degree to which our technology has outpaced the science fiction expectation here is really impressive.

    7. Re:Like detecting a butterfly across the ocean by dohzer · · Score: 1

      And there's no smog to kill the butterfly.

  3. Until we can actually go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is mere mathematical speculation, not science.

    Science requires a hypothesis, a method of testing said hypothesis, and then confirmation or refutation of the expected results.

    While I am impressed with much of what goes on in the scientific community, there is a lot of stuff touted out to the public that really doesn't meet the bars, especially as the news articles portray it. That does a disservice to real science and proof of the hypothesis and methods used to get there, as well as any tangible applications that can be produced from it if it is applicable here on earth.

    1. Re: Until we can actually go there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Until we can go there" would be the same fallacy as saying electrons are not science until we can see them with our naked eye. Confidence in theories comes in a continuum, not some binary threshold. In this case, there is quite a history of microlensing studies, which did include hypotheses about what would be seen. The results are not as certain as the existence of the electron, but a lot more so than some math thrown together without new evidence.

    2. Re:Until we can actually go there... by Mascot · · Score: 1

      You can't call it science when you use scientific theories to make discoveries? That seems to me to be what you're saying.

      E.g. if we take Einstein's hypothesis for how light should behave near massive objects, and the predictions this provides, and confirm those, we can't call it science if we then use the resultant theory to make observations/discoveries?

      Case in point, that mass bends light isn't some wild speculation, but a fact of reality with decades worth of confirmation at this point. There's a reason we call it the theory of general relativity, not the hypothesis. Using microlensing to make discoveries is thus perfectly valid science. Now, media has a tendency to ignore any kind of reservation that the actual scientists make. In this case, the obtained data seems open to interpretation. So, interesting and exciting, but not sufficient to actually announce a discovery. But claiming it's not science strikes me as ludicrous.

    3. Re: Until we can actually go there... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

      They have actually tapped into God's wrath, which we model mathematically as "electrons".

      Incidentally, you can really piss off God by rubbing a balloon on your head.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Until we can actually go there... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We have observations of that phenomen since 1917: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re: Until we can actually go there... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      That is correct though...Electrons are purely theoretical based on our current models of understanding reality. the original poster is correct.

      The existence of the any kind of physical world outside of your own mind is also purely theoretical.

    6. Re: Until we can actually go there... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The existence of the AC's mind is purely theoretical and highly doubtful.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    7. Re: Until we can actually go there... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      If I get a bad headache, that still doesn't prove that you or your hammer actually exist.

    8. Re: Until we can actually go there... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Scary! God willing, I will never touch the electrical force, knock on wood.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Until we can actually go there... by Mascot · · Score: 1

      1919, not 1917, but I'm not sure I see your point. Did you reply to the wrong post? I wrote that we have decades worth of confirmation. I considered going with "about a hundred years", but considering gravitational lensing took longer to observe, I decided to avoid a possible pedant response pointing that out. I guess there's just no winning the internet. :p

    10. Re:Until we can actually go there... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No, I did not answer to the wrong post. I just wanted to support your stand point.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Until we can actually go there... by Mascot · · Score: 1

      In that case, support appreciated. :)

  4. Interesting, but by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    It doesn't sound like everyone is convinced these planets - if they are planets - are extragalactic. So while it's definitely cool science, perhaps we should monitor this story for further developments and feedback from other researchers.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Wow. by RyanFenton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's - that's ACTUALLY far out, dude.

    In order to take advantage of that without some unforeseeable technology, you'd need to do some rather extreme things though.

    Not just planning hundreds of thousands of years in advance, but planning across many, many kinds of entropy that we're not used to engineering around - and even then, you'd be very limited with what you could do.

    The most hard-sci-fi solution I can think of to get through such a puzzle would be genetically engineering a culture of bacteria-sized critters to live in minimal-metabolism cycles (think water bears) for the long, long period between galaxies, until they sensed a solar body warming them up again. Then, they'd wake up to their their DNA-triggered-payload, and break through a seal to a block of stable metals and, start carving out circuits and shells for nanobots. Those nanobots would work with the organic components to make solar cells, harvest rocks, gather resources.

    Eventually, they'd look for home galaxy signals, looking for an extensively protected series of keys and protocols to 3d-print further updates from home, until they can eventually become a hub to print people (or equivalent, given the timeframe) to live on what worlds are discovered, of what habitats can be built.

    Anything like a modern machine just wouldn't make it there, and would be useless by the time it was in place, you'd kind of need a generic programmable platform to bootstrap what will actually be useful by that time. You have to have something that makes information from our future mean something in these far-off vistas, a foothold.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Wow. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      >>That's an interesting post, but what does it have to do with the story?

      I see definitive hints of planets in other galaxies, I wonder how we, as humanity would reach them. Don't you?

      Ryan Fenton

    2. Re:Wow. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      I actually think of that as the "easier" problem - once you're just out of our own galaxy, mechanisms might survive enough to fine-tune the aim with home-galaxy input, and you can work out a path to go 'slow' enough, and/or loop with negative gravity assist so that gravity wells will work to keep you in-galaxy. You still kind of have to be a dumb missile at the delivery end though, with what I can imagine. As long as you can slow, it's more like golf than archery - a hole in one is difficult and complex, but just getting on the green when the ball is rolling is potentially good enough. You get a LOT of stars in a galaxy to approach, with a lot of passes potentially.

      You might build sort of solar drag-sails (parachute?) that only unfurl out of our own galaxy, but I don't know if they'd survive or be worth it. Kind of a whirly-bird (elm tree fruit) approach if you went with that.

      Hopefully futuretech is better than any of that, but imagining with what we have it how we get ideas to get better stuff.

      Ryan Fenton

    3. Re:Wow. by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      Yes. This is an awesomely well informed (and informing) site. You want seriously advanced, hard core astronomical science, with an eye on practical applications in the ~100 year range, this is the place to watch.

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
  6. Re:nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh no! We've only got, at least, 3.8 billion years to prepare. Which is only about 3.8 billion years more than them if they get here as quickly as possible.

  7. Re:nope by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

    Except that they've been travelling for 3.8 billion years already.

  8. Misleading story by JoeRobe · · Score: 3, Informative

    The picture that goes with the story is pretty, but carries no actual information about the planets that were detected. The story also gives the impression that the planets were actually imaged thanks to microlensing, which I donâ(TM)t think is true. Does anyone have access to the original AJL article?

    My understanding (from the OU press release and abstract) is that they analyzed the high frequency fluctuations of atomic line energy shifts of the lensed light to determine that there were small, fast moving objects in the galaxy. They modeled those fluctuations to determine planets in the size range of moon to Jupiter were consistent with what they saw.

    If thatâ(TM)s correct, then what theyâ(TM)re able to do here is impressive. Theyâ(TM)re claiming to be able to identify the presence of small objects based upon their contribution to the lensing from a much larger parent object.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
    1. Re:Misleading story by jocarren · · Score: 1

      Thank you for clarifying, the article is awfully misleading.

  9. Link to arXiv Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  10. Re: Visit new planets in a Tesla by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    What part do I put the "@" before?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  11. Copy of the original paper, free to read by StupendousMan · · Score: 2

    You can find a freely available copy of the paper at this location:

          https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.000...

    Your summary of the paper is correct.

    --
    Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
    mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
  12. Re: nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, Einstein said so a while ago, but a lot of people have said so since then.
    If those were wrong then it is very likely that our understanding of how things work also means that the observation of this planet is bogus.

  13. Re: nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why does it always have to conform to what humans have said? You're still not correctly seeing past the limitations of your own mind. Not surprisingly though. People always default to disbelief because some smart person said so.

    For all the ways you think X can't be done, there are entire realms of options we can't even conceive of because we don't know they even exist.

    You're trying to think of warp drive while existing as a small mammal that lives in a hole hiding from dinosaurs.