Water Found in Exoplanet's Atmosphere

anthemaniac writes "Astronomers have long suspected that water should exist in the atmospheres of extrasolar planets. Now they have evidence. Water has been discovered in a planet called HD209458b, which was previously found to have oxygen. From the article: 'The discovery ... means one of the most crucial elements for life as we know it can exist around planets orbiting other stars.' But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star."

Straw poll:

[by Anonymous Coward]

This discovery only reinforces the possibility of life outside our solar system; we've only discovered a few extra-solar planets, and at least one among those we've seen has life. So:

How many people now think that ETs of some form do exist?

Re:

[spun (1352)]

This discovery only reinforces the possibility of life outside our solar system; we've only discovered a few extra-solar planets, and at least one among those we've seen has life. So:

How many people now think that ETs of some form do exist?

It's a big universe. Chances are very good that other life of some sort exists. However, we have found no evidence of life yet, despite the presence of oxygen which would usually be considered a strong indicator of the presence of life.

"Despite the oxygen, the faraway pla [space.com]

Re:Straw poll:

[jimstapleton (999106)]

Actually, in areas of greater pressure (deeper under the clouds), there is still the possibility of life I would say.

Another thing is, we often make the following assumptions in terms of life forms, and we can be ceratain of none of them:

1) requirements of Carbon and Oxygen
-- Sulphur, Silicon, and any far-left or far-right non-noble element can handle the requirements here (namely something that can form long complex structures, and something highly reactive that nonetheless has stable compounds wherein it exists)
2) The life will be based on nucleic acids (RNA/DNA) and amino acids (proteins)
-- While these are more simple structures that could perform their tasks while remaining stable, there are other structures that could potentially store data and perform structural/chemical tasks.

Re:Straw poll:

[chuckymonkey (1059244)]

I think that most scientists are aware of that and what they're actually getting at are planets that could support life similar to our own. Life that we could recognize and interact with, perhaps even coexist with in some unknown future. There are many unproven forms that life can exist in, however we probably wouldn't recognize them if we saw them so we naturally stick with what we know.

Re:Straw poll:

[CogDissident (951207)]

Besides, whats the use of finding a space buffalo if we can't kill it, eat it's flesh, wear it's skin, and turn the land it used to live on into farmland?

Re:Straw poll:

[LotsOfPhil (982823)]

(warning, I use chemical symbols. You might want a periodic table).
I agree with you that there could well be life that is vastly different than what we are used to.

Another thing is, we often make the following assumptions in terms of life forms, and we can be ceratain of none of them:
1) requirements of Carbon and Oxygen
-- Sulphur, Silicon, and any far-left or far-right non-noble element can handle the requirements here (namely something that can form long complex structures, and something highly reactive that nonetheless has stable compounds wherein it exists)

But this doesn't make sense to me. When you say far-left and far-right, I assume you mean the periodic table. That means you are talking about Cl, Br, Na, K, etc. That doesn't make sense (they tend to only make 1 bond), so I figure you are talking about the p-block.
That means you are talking about B, F, C, Si, Cl and Br. What is special about carbon is that it forms 4 bonds. So, this means you are just talking about carbon and silicon. Let's throw out anything heavier (Ge, Sn) because they aren't that abundant.
Sure, there could be something based on silicon but... Look at CO2 (a gas) and SiO2 (silica, a solid). Carbon just seems like the best candidate for life to be based on. Nitrogen (or P) and boron (or Al) seem to be the best other candidates.

Re:Straw poll:

[Rei (128717)]

Look at CO2 (a gas) and SiO2 (silica, a solid).

That's a misconception; the sort of silicon-based life that we're talking about are not precisely the same as carbon chains. In carbon chains, you typically have C-C-C-C-C... etc. In the equivalent silicon (actually silicone) molecule, you have Si-O-Si-O-Si-O-Si.... etc. Si-Si-Si... etc doesn't chain well, but Si-O-Si-O.. chains indefinitely. Compare a hydrocarbon-based lubricant with a silicone-based one, hydrocarbon solids (plastics) with silicone ones, etc. There's been a lot more research on the former so far; the latter can likewise be functionalized.

A few differences in the chemistry:

1) C-C-C-C-C... chains can freely rotate, while Si-O-Si-O... chains need a specific "joint" to do so.
2) Carbon more readily double and triple bonds, although removing Os from the Si-O chain can create similar (but not equivalent) effects.

There are all sorts of biologically interesting silicon compounds. The silicon equivalent of methane is silane. It's even more flammable than methane; it's hypergolic with our atmosphere (burns on contact). Its giving up of its hydrogen could be seen as equivalent to ATP and its phosphorus. Longer "silanes" scale like longer hydrocarbons -- their vapor pressure decreases the longer they get (silanes with 2-3 silicons make for good wood sealants). Zeolites are silicates (your typical silicon solids that you were picturing) but with various metal ions interspersed with them; they're excellent, highly selective catalysts. Probably the most biologically interesting (to me, at least) are silanols [ic.ac.uk], which exist naturally in Earth's oceans (and probably predated life), and can form all sorts of catalytic groups, membranes, etc.

Re:

[Dasher42 (514179)]

Well, let's look at what the most common elements are in the universe. A quick Google shows:

Hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon, iron, nitrogen, silicon, magnesium, sulfur. There's your top ten, in that order. It's interesting that carbon, versatile as it is, is so very common. Considering that hydrogen and oxygen, hence water, rank even higher, I think that life as we know it has statistically higher odds of appearing, especially in conditions where water is liquid. The physics of these compounds i

Re:

[Enrique1218 (603187)]

I agree as for sulfur but silicon is stretching things a bit. In contrast to carbon, silicon dioxide is a non soluble solid. The gaseous solublity properties of carbon means that it can distribute in water and in cells where it can be fixed into sugars and biological compounds by life. Silicon can't be distributed that way and thus least likely to be the basis of life. There are other reasons [wikipedia.org] however it is suffice to say that silicon based life would have a smaller occurrence in the universe than that of ca

Re:

[The_Wilschon (782534)]

Sulphur, Silicon, and any far-left or far-right non-noble element can handle the requirements here (namely something that can form long complex structures, and something highly reactive that nonetheless has stable compounds wherein it exists)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Silicon-based _life [wikipedia.org]:

Under known conditions, silicon chemistry simply cannot begin to approach the diversity of organic chemistry, a crucial factor in carbon's role in biology.

Also, the article points out that long complex ch

Re:

[mattatwork (988481)]

There is a good chance, but it would most likely be microbial life (ie bacteria)...not something exciting like little green men. Bacteria can grow in soil, acidic hot springs, radioactive waste and in extreme cold condiations (ie space)...

Re:

[insanius (1058584)]

anyone who doubts that there is ET life is either extremely ignorant or just a fool. seriously, i don't even see how in this day in age that there is even a debate about 'if?'. the real questions are 'what kind?', 'where?', 'how "intelligent"?'. we've known for some time now that new elements get created with every star and spread with their explosions and comets carry the ingredients for life light years way. Comets are intergalactic sperm, planets/moons are the eggs. In my mind it couldn't be more ob

Re:

[trianglman (1024223)]

Comets, in general are not interstellar bodies, much less intergalactic. Is it probable that a comet deposited the necessary elements on Earth for life? Yes, but those comets were created during the creation of our solar system; they didn't come from Alpha Centauri, etc. I also believe, just on odds, that there is other, probably intelligent, life in the universe and your questions are more accurate than "If"

Re:

[KingKiki217 (979050)]

I'm a Christian, and I find your argument ad hominem, off topic, and ignorant at best. If you aren't trolling, please keep in mind that a belief in a God, although shared by crazies and extremists, does not make one any less intellectually capable, any more than being a vegetarian makes a person evil because Hitler was one.

Re:Straw poll:

[Grishnakh (216268)]

Maybe you should redirect your anger to all your fellow Christians who believe exactly as I said in my post. I'm just posting on my observations on the great majority of Christians in this country and how they behave.

Your Hitler comparison is flawed. Hitler was only one person, and most vegetarians are nothing like Hitler. However, a majority of Christians (at least in the USA; my apologies if you live somewhere else where Christians are not fundamentalist) do believe the earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is false, that Creationism should be taught in public schools, etc. So if you're one of the rare minority that doesn't believe this way, and doesn't try to push these beliefs on everyone else, then that's great. But you have to acknowledge that most of your co-believers are like this this.

Re:Straw poll:

[Grishnakh (216268)]

You're absolutely wrong. If you don't believe me, here's a link to one of the aforementioned polls:
CBS poll [cbsnews.com]

Before you say anything about the validity of polls, I think they're a lot more valid than some comments from random people like you on Slashdot who are trying to defend a position with no evidence whatsoever.

Anyway, the poll referenced shows 55% believing that "God created humans in present form", meaning they're Creationists. More importantly, 37% favor teaching Creationism instead of Evolution in schools, and 65% favor teaching both.

So your assertion that most Christians in the USA ("WHEREVER" is a totally different ball of wax; other places don't have nearly as many fundamentalists as the USA) "DONT WANT" creationism taught in school is obviously false. The percentage of Christians in the USA is certainly significantly less than 100%, with all the atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and others. Let's say it's around 75% for argument's sake; if 65% out of 75% believes both Creationism and Evolution should be taught, that's obviously a majority. And the 37% of the stricter Creationism-only group is still about half. Again, look at the significance here: HALF of US Christians want Creationism (only) taught in schools.

So no, my opinions are not based on any personal anecdotes, but instead large nationwide surveys.

Re:Straw poll:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

> Because we know it exists in at least one location

Which tells us nothing except that it is possible for life to exist. The fact that life exists here tells us absolutely nothing about the likelihood of life arising apart from its being greater than zero because for obvious reasons we are sampling from a biased distribution, being alive ourselves. :-)

> Do you have any idea how many billions of stars are in our galaxy, and how many billions of galaxies are in the observable universe?

As it happens, yes. But I also know that combinatorial explosions [wikipedia.org] can generate numbers vastly larger than the number of things in the physical universe and the number of ways of arranging matter is described by a combinatorial explosion. Who knows how many of those combinations involve life, but it has the potential to be incredibly small. Small in a way that the size of the universe doesn't touch in bigness.

> If you are saying, "no one knows for sure. Don't say you're sure the chances are good if you can't prove they are," then that is certainly valid.

Looks like we're actually in total agreement.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

I've watched the astronomical community (from both the inside and as a layperson) go from not knowing for sure whether there were planets outside of the solar system to being able to routinely detect exo-planets with off-the-self equipment [www.ursa.fi] within 10 years.

I can't help but wonder how long it'll take till we have the same leap for detecting life once we know exactly what we're looking for. I'm hoping it'll be sooner rather than later.

Read this book: Rare Earth

[oni (41625)]

There is a great book that anyone interested in this question should read: Rare Earth [amazon.com].

It is a very well-researched book that goes into great detail on all the different terms of the drake equation (and a few extra terms) and shows what the best scientific evidence suggests are the actual values for those terms. The bottom line of the book is that single-celled life is probably incredibly common, it's probably everywhere. Life that's big enough for you to actually see is probably pretty rare. Intelligent life is very rare, and technological civilizations are practically a miracle.

Re:

[Lane.exe (672783)]

Of course, given the size and age of the universe, the emergence of technological civilizations can still be both miraculous and "common" by our own finite, everyday standards.

Re:

[oni (41625)]

civilizations can still be both miraculous and "common"

Wait. Isn't "common" usually defined in terms of a ratio? dictionary.com definition 4 says: widespread; general; ordinary

So by that definition, even if there are billions of civilizations, if the ratio is 1/10000000000000 then I don't think you can call it common.

Anyway, the grandparent post asked, "who believes in ET" and I think that a scientific answer: ET is out there, but maybe not even in our galaxy. So we are very very unlikely to ever find any life that we can talk to. The question that people

Re:Read this book: Rare Earth

[Anonymous Custard (587661)]

So we are very very unlikely to ever find any life that we can talk to.

Kind of like on slashdot.

Re:Perhaps

[Viper Daimao (911947)]

and if we're unfortunate it will be the Shadows and Goa'uld.

Re:Perhaps

[inviolet (797804)]

I dunno, if some of the worst of the current political trends continue, we'll end up being the Vorlons instead.

Vorlons? More like Vogons. You know, the fat [cdc.gov], bureaucratic [irs.gov] bullies [whitehouse.gov] who write horrible emo poetry [myspace.com] and eventually demolished the Earth in order to build a useless bypass [usnews.com].

Do your research...

[otacon (445694)]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Re:

[camperdave (969942)]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Man, you must have some serious lag times.

Re:

[Ice Wewe (936718)]

I live on HD209458b you insensitive clod.

Man, you must have some serious lag times.

Yeah, but does his ISP shape encrypted traffic? Don't want those damn Plutonians knowing what he does online!

Re:

[otacon (445694)]

I'm actually on dial-up here, you should see what the broadband connections can do.

Re:

[Colonel Angus (752172)]

Even so, I bet his wireless carrier's data rates are cheaper than Canada's...

Criteria for Life

[SuperKendall (25149)]

But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star."

Where there is hot water, there are saunas. Where there are saunas, there are tourists. Thus this remote planet has life, and most likley drinks with little umbrellas (or "snotzwathctls" as the local dialect probably refers to them).

Of course!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why, just the other day I said "Hey, remember HD209458b"? and everyone was like "Oh yeah, that's the 'Hot Jupiter', right?"

Re:Of course!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why, just the other day I said "Hey, remember HD209458b"? and everyone was like "Oh yeah, that's the 'Hot Jupiter', right?"

At least it wasn't 'Great Personality Jupiter.'

Re:

[ResidntGeek (772730)]

Or "Knows Music Jupiter".

Boiling water? No problem!

[phyrebyrd (631520)]

Just think of all the marine life that lives in and around the thermal vents on the sea floor... Temperature isn't much of a challenge if you're determined enough!

No little green men?

[DaveV1.0 (203135)]

How about large, flying whales?

Re:

[140Mandak262Jamuna (970587)]

Flying whales? Aren't they supposed to be kind of floating like blimps?

Aaaaaahhhhhh......

[ricky-road-flats (770129)]

You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star.

Oh, *that* HB209458b...

Re:

[otacon (445694)]

I was getting it confused with HD209458a for the longest time.

HD209458a

[MS-06FZ (832329)]

Can I get game output in that mode? Is it gonna be laggy?

"Hi, I'm Troy McClure..."

[sczimme (603413)]

"You might remember me from such planets as HD209458b, the 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star, and from Earth, the deadliest planet of them all."

HOT JUPITERS !!! its back

[unity100 (970058)]

someone after the 'hot jupiters' article in in slashdot had had said that his/her favorite exclamation was going to be "HOT JUPITERS !!!!" . i wonder what s/he is doing now.

ah hey. theres a new meme for you.

Life can easily exist

[Billly Gates (198444)]

Thermal resistant bacteria can survive temperatures are up to 600 degrees [wonderclub.com] in sea vents along the ocean floors and hot springs in Yellowstone.

They just need to evolve in that environment.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

nothing survives at 600 degrees F. That is the temperature of the vent, and is strictly a sterile environment near the opening. The stuff that lives around the vents lives where the cold seawater and the vent liquid mix.

Maximum temperature for microbial life at pressure is closer to 200 degrees F or 90C. Similar to Thermus aquaticus in yellowstone, an extremophile that lives above 70C.

Don't get too carried away!

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Sure bacteria live inside sea vents and even in nuclear reactor cores. Many of these don't even need oxygen (so using oxygen as an indicator of life is ill informed). Tube worms and other animals found near the vents don't live inside the vents, they live around them where the water is a lot cooler (way less than 100C).

Re:

[lawpoop (604919)]

I'm asking for some discussion on this subject. A lot of people look at extremophile organisms and take that as evidence that life as we know it ( carbon-based DNA/RNA cells ) is hardy, and can arise in many places -- hot places, cold places, frozen places, boiling places, nuclear reaction chambers, outer space, solid rock, etc., etc.

Personally, I lean toward that idea that life can only *originate* in a small window of 'specs' ( such as 70-100* F, in water, with plenty of amino acids floating around ),

But can life evolve

[oni (41625)]

sure, you could take Earth-life and transport it there. but the other side of that equation is, can life evolve on that planet. There are a couple of theories about how life got started on Earth. One is that it came here on comets. Another (this is from Dawkin's book, The Blind Watchmaker) is that life starts in streams with silicate crystals in clay, and that's not something you're likely to find on a hot jupiter.

It turns out that evolution is easy, but genesis is hard. Remember, scientists have manag

incomplete summary

[Darth (29071)]

The summary is incomplete. It tells us this :

But don't go looking for little green men. You might remember HD209458b as a 'hot Jupiter' that boils under the glow of its very nearby star."

but neglects to answer the very important question this raises :

Given what we remember about HD209458b, what colour little men should we look for?

My initial guess was red, but there's no guarantee HD209458b-ians can even get sunburned.

If old Sci-Fi has taught anything

[geekoid (135745)]

it's that people from Hot planets are red, or reptilian.
Also, there entire culture can be overthrown by 1 starfleet captian.

Re:

[hoggoth (414195)]

And that machine intelligence can be defeated by being asked to calculate PI to the last digit, or by explaining that "this statement is a lie."

Water for life as *WE* know it.

[mathx (988938)]

There are other systems of life possible, without water, so long as they meet our definitions of life. Im always suprised by this very anthropocentric ('terrapocentric'? :) approach for the requirements for life...