Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Solar System Look-Alike Found

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 04:44 PM
from the evil-twin dept.
Space Science
SpuriousLogic writes "Astronomers have discovered a planetary system orbiting a distant star which looks much like our own. They found two planets that were close matches for Jupiter and Saturn orbiting a star about half the size of our Sun. Martin Dominik, from St Andrews University in the UK, said the finding suggested systems like our own could be much more common than we thought."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Solar System's 'look-alike' found by SpuriousLogic (1183411)
[+] Astronomers Locate Solar System Very Similar To Our Own 101 comments
Smivs writes "Astronomers from St Andrews University in the UK have discovered a planetary system which looks much like our own. Dr Martin Dominik told BBC news: 'We found a system with two planets that take the roles of Jupiter and Saturn in our Solar System. These two planets have a similar mass ratio and similar orbital radius and a similar orbital period. The newfound planetary system, which orbits the star OGLE-2006-BLG-109L, is more compact than our own and is about five thousand light-years away. The OGLE planets were found using a technique called gravitational micro-lensing, in which light from the faraway planets is bent and magnified by the gravity of a foreground object, in this case a another star.'" Update: 04/08 12:26 GMT by Z : This story is talking about a subject we have already discussed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Solar System Look-Alike Found 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • But wait! I'm the one with the goatee. Does that mean I'm the evil one???

  • A bit of a reach (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bovius (1243040) on Monday April 07 2008, @04:50PM (#22993950)
    I'm sorry, I have trouble whenever whenever an astronomer suggests that something they found "may be much more common than we thought." One observation does not mean way more common. It jumps the gap from "purely theoretical" to "proven possible", and in the data set of the known universe really isn't enough to make any type of assertion about commonality.

    Yes, I know, our solar system makes it two.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It certainly eliminates the "uniqueness" we thought our solar system was. So yes, 2 is more common than we previously thought.
      • So yes, 2 is more common than we previously thought.

        Because a star is "just like ours" if it has 50% of the mass?

        I'm sorry, this story is a ridiculous piece of over-reaching. A star half the size of ours will have, off the cuff, maybe 1/4th the light output. How big is that habitable zone going to be?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by CorSci81 (1007499)
            Actually, considering the range of sizes stars can have, a factor of 2 is pretty damn close in the astronomical world.
            • Saying that "a factor of 2 is pretty damn close in the astronomical world" is right, but it proves how unlikely it is that we'll find another solar system "just like ours." If astronomers think that being off by 50% is a discovery worth announcing worldwide, then that shows just how unlikely they think it is that they'll discover something that's only off by 5-10%. As others have said, a sun that's half the size of ours will have a much smaller habitable zone (at least based on carbon/water life), and the
              • I don't think we necessarily know if their are smaller planets in this new system. I'm not sure the exact limitations, but while there have been small (smaller than earth even) objects detected, they seem to only be detected in systems with no significantly larger objects present. This suggests to me that having a big object interferes with detecting a nearby small one.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by niktemadur (793971)
                ...it proves how unlikely it is that we'll find another solar system "just like ours". If astronomers think that being off by 50% is a discovery worth announcing worldwide, then that shows just how unlikely they think it is that they'll discover something that's only off by 5-10%.

                Another way of looking at it, is that the technologies and techniques used to detect extrasolar planets are getting more sensitive and precise, we're inching closer the point in which we'll be able to detect solar systems much mor
            • "pretty damn close"?

              As I said, it's going to have a much lower light output and, thus, a much smaller habitable zone - hardly "just like our sun" and hardly likely to have an earth-like world.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by pe1rxq (141710)
            Half the size is still very much alike....
            And because the configuration is alike (as far as gas giants and there place) it is likely that the evolution of our system is not unique.
            • "Yeah, I know this guy who looks just like me. The only difference is that he is half my size but besides that, we are like two drops of water."
    • Well, two is more common than one, so if we originally thought we were unique.... well...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Otter (3800)
      I think the idea is that since we can only examine such a small fraction of the universe, anything we find must be reasonably "common". (Earth itself being exempt from that logic because of the anthropic principle.)
    • We don't really have any previous data on how common they are, though, so "more common than we thought" is pretty much meaningless. We've only just started having the technology to potentially detect systems like our own (and we still can't detect terrestrial planets like ours). All we knew before was that systems quite unlike our own were common, which doesn't say much when they were the only kind we could detect. It will be awhile longer before we can even make an initial statement of whether they're r

      • Re:A bit of a reach (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Toonol (1057698) on Monday April 07 2008, @05:52PM (#22994530)
        Right; we don't really have any data to confirm how common earthlike planets are. I expect they're very common, using the common-sense reasoning thusly: As soon as we gained the technology to detect big planets we found them all over. As soon as we develop the technology to detect small planets, the same thing will probably happen. I'm 99% positive I'm right.

        But scientists can't really reason that way; they may hypothesize smaller planets, but can't really make any factual statement about what lies beyond their ability to detect. I guess that the statement would be better phrased as we now have concrete evidence our solar system isn't unique, so the hypothesis that our type of system is relatively common has passed a hurdle of proof.

    • I'm sorry, I have trouble whenever whenever an astronomer suggests that something they found "may be much more common than we thought." One observation does not mean way more common. It jumps the gap from "purely theoretical" to "proven possible", and in the data set of the known universe really isn't enough to make any type of assertion about commonality.

    • I'm sorry, I have trouble whenever whenever an astronomer suggests that something they found "may be much more common than we thought." One observation does not mean way more common. It jumps the gap from "purely theoretical" to "proven possible", and in the data set of the known universe really isn't enough to make any type of assertion about commonality.

      I suppose it depends on what one considers "common."

      Lets put it this way. If you walked up to a haystack and looked down and quickly spotted a needle, wo

  • Might be somewhere interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lobiusmoop (305328) on Monday April 07 2008, @04:54PM (#22993980) Homepage
    for the SETI crowd to point their antennas to.

    • Of course it's not. It's 5,000 bloody light years away. There are stars 1,000 times closer to us than that. And 1,000 times closer to us would mean that we'd receive the same radio signals 1 million times better.

  • 5,000 light years (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mr_mischief (456295) on Monday April 07 2008, @04:55PM (#22993986) Journal
    ... "At least planetary systems like ours might be more common than previously thought over that direction, 5,000 years ago, at around the distance from us that light would take 5,000 years to get here. Or maybe somebody's holding up a distorted mirror 2,500 light years away. We're not really sure. Some scientist said we're discovering more than we used to, now that we're confident that we can detect them and bother looking. That must mean the spike in data is representative."

    I'm looking hopefully forward to giving people directions by system name and planet number just as much as the next /. geek. I doubt, though, that thinking in general about the number of multi-planet systems has changed drastically because of this one system. Like most science reporting in the mainstream press, this is oversimplified and overhyped.

  • Impressive work (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hattig (47930) on Monday April 07 2008, @04:55PM (#22993996) Journal
    I read the article earlier, and then it had that the star was 5 light years away. I investigated, and it is actually 4900 light years away.

    I'm impressed that they could resolve two planets going around a star that far away, gravitational lensing or not.
      • Of course, lest they take us over first. You don't want to be a slave to an alien civilization, do you?

        • Of course, lest they take us over first. You don't want to be a slave to an alien civilization, do you?
          With all of the overlord welcoming that goes on around here, I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to that question is "Yes".

  • Dupe (Score:4, Informative)

    by jdb2 (800046) * on Monday April 07 2008, @04:59PM (#22994024) Journal
    Here's the original from February 14 :

    [slashdot.org]http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/14/223241 [slashdot.org]

    jdb2
  • I am impressed, but I'll be much more impressed when techniques are developed that can spot rocky Earth-type planets.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pe1rxq (141710)
      Actually if you read the article (I know this is slashdot....) you would know that the current techniques are at the level that an earth like planet could be detected with gravitational lensing.
      Just not at the distance of this system.

      An earth size rock could be detected any day now.
    • They're the ones that are fighting Apollo Creed Earth Type planets.
    • ...when they can spot a planet that has an ocean of liquid water on it.
    • I am impressed, but I'll be much more impressed when techniques are developed that can spot rocky Earth-type planets.

      Eh, it's just a matter of money. IIRC we could put a constellation of even old Hubble-type 'scopes at L3 and do this today. We just need to scrap together $40B or so. Presumably we can do it affordably with future technology.

  • "Inhabited" or "Inhabitable?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BeeBeard (999187) on Monday April 07 2008, @05:12PM (#22994146)
    FTA:

    He said that the ultimate goal for exoplanet researchers was to find habitable Earth-like and Mars-like planets.
    (emphasis added)

    While we all crack wise about the bizarro planet of our science fiction dreams, it bears pointing out that the point of the program is ostensibly to find other inhabitable planets--that is, potential sites for future human expansion, rather than other inhabited planets. The difference between the two is not insignificant, and is a nod to the somewhat conservative view that while it may prove impossible to find another planet like the Earth where life has evolved concurrently with our own, it is nevertheless very realistic to search for another planet like the Earth where life could thrive.

  • Biz opportunity? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Linker3000 (626634) on Monday April 07 2008, @06:10PM (#22994690)
    A solar system with similar features to our own eh? Darl...?

  • Using that microlensing technique, and knowing that we can detect a Saturn in a twin solar system 5,000 light years away, how close would a star have to be for us to be able to detect an Earth?

  • Paging Dr. Drake (Score:3, Funny)

    by dpilot (134227) on Monday April 07 2008, @06:55PM (#22995084) Homepage Journal
    Your equation is waiting... ...for some coefficients.
  • Earth lawyers sue for copying the "look and feel" of the solar system.
  • then the system isn't all that like ours. It may be better than any other one so far... but that's far from okay. Let's hope they'll be able to stop with the B.S. press releases and give us some real good news one of these days.
  • This is sort of offtopic, but I have a different perspective on any of these reports of Sol-like systems.

    Given our current detection technology, how far away could an alien observer be and still be able to
    1) Detect Sol

    2) Detect rocky planets within Sol's habitable zone, specifically at least one of Earth's dimensions.

    3) Determine the composition of one of those planets to be composed of organic chemistry requisite for life as we know it?

    My layman's guess is that that alien observer would have to
  • It turns out we were looking into the wrong end of the telescope. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.

  • I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MrCreosote (34188) on Monday April 07 2008, @11:24PM (#22996698)
    if they have the same gods as we do?
    • Well, with the subprime mortage stuff going on in the US, I wouldnt be surprised that people start buying...

    • Re:Real Estate Prices (Score:4, Funny)

      by Snowmit (704081) on Monday April 07 2008, @05:43PM (#22994432) Homepage

      I heard you can buy a two bedroom rancher on its earth-like planets for only $15000. Of course, the commute is killer.
      Listen, I'll sell you one right now for only $4999. Act fast! The long term returns on this real estate investment are ASTRONOMICAL.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.