Possible Extra-Galactic Planet Detected 83
Nancy Atkinson writes "Using a technique called pixel-lensing, a group of astronomers in Italy may have detected a planet orbiting another star. But this planet is unique among the 300-plus exoplanets discovered so far, as it and its parent star are in another galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy, to be exact. Technically, the star in M31 was found to have a companion about 6 times the mass of Jupiter, so it could be either a brown dwarf or a planet. But either way, this is a remarkable feat, to find an object of that size in another galaxy."
Re:I get it but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's science, not scouting out new planets to live on. This discovery would support the idea that planets can be found around stars in other galaxies. Specifically, it supports the Cosmological Principle, that there's nothing particularly special about our corner of the universe. It might seem like it is obvious that there are planets everywhere in the universe, but that is hardly a given. It's about removing assumptions from our models and getting down to actual facts.
NOT extra-galactic (Score:2, Insightful)
I was fooled by the bad title. Surely 'extra-galactic' means outside a galaxy...I envisaged a planet just floating around in inter-galactic space which would have been really interesting. This one IS in a galaxy, just not ours.
Re:NOT extra-galactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I get it but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand the value of searching for other planets but seriously in another galaxy? WTF? Does relavancy matter?
there's an old saw about how if we were going to find extraterrestrial life that it would have found us already. it's total bullshit because we know fuck-all about anything outside of our solar system. The more we know about what's out there the better guesses we can make, which tells us where to look for the next piece of information.
Knowing something about the rate of occurrence of planets orbiting stars in other galaxies will help us confirm or deny other theories.
Re:I get it but... (Score:4, Insightful)
lol. Nice grumpy old man post but you forgot the "when I was young" part.
Re:that is ... umm ... great? (Score:5, Insightful)
You said it yourself - we work under the *assumption* that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. It's nice to be able to test to make sure our assumptions are true, or at least not obviously false. And massive amounts of progress are usually made when we find out our assumptions are wrong rather than when we just confirm they're right, so we *should* always test the things we're assuming (but haven't really demonstrated) to be true.
As to what we gain, we gain better instruments and more tools in our toolbox for studying the universe, and a tool that might be useful in other unexpected ways down the line. In another slashdot story today, a drug that was once going to be used to treat ulcers might now prove to be a very good medication for leukemia treatment. The scientist decided to test 2500 compounds on stem-cells and see if anything interesting happened and lo, it did. The scientists in this story decided to try out a new technique and demonstrated that they could find a (relatively) tiny object far, far away. I'm no astronomer, but I'd say that technique will likely have other applications.
Intellectual curiosity is not a bad thing, and can lead to amazing stuff.
Re:I get it but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Science is done for science's sake. You would be hard pressed to find any discovery in the field of astronomy which has led to a practical discovery (I won't say there is none, because I'm sure someone can come up with an example.) Who cares about the atmosphere of Venus, or the structure of the Sun? The point is, we do science for its own sake, and when it leads to a discovery, that's nice, but hardly the goal.
You speak way too soon. Humans are Macguyvers when it comes to science. You think astronomers spot a supernova and watch it supernove just for the hell of it? They use the things to test relativity, predict temperatures, build physics theories, and attempt to determine chemical makeup and elemental behaviors in such environments and all this from something that would never seem to affect us. These studies can lead to technological and medical breakthroughs here at home. It could give us a new fusion or propulsion technology, new branches to explore in math, better lasers, who knows? I challenge you to find ANY scientific finding [read: not philosophic] that humans have had no use for within 10 years of its discovery. We use every scrap of knowledge because we, as a species, have managed to create 100 problems for every discovery that will ever be made. We were born, as a species, a sentient life on a planet without libraries. Even according to the biblical religions, we were told that "by the sweat of our brow will we eat our bread" and so we began sweating. If there's knowledge to be found in this universe from the perspective of our world, we are the ones who have to do it. So it goes.
Our thirst for knowledge, however, is overdriven by our penchance for environmental mischief, and even life-benefitting discoveries cause problems on their own. Consider healthcare. We've ballooned our ability to rehabilitate a dying human so we can practically all live 100 years, but at costs greater than we, as an entire society, can truly afford for the rising number of those who rely on this technology. Where will the solution(s) to the cost issue come from? The mathmatics of economics will help. Chemistry and Biology must also come into play, somehow, to make healthcare cheaper. Will astronomy? Its runoff understandings of chemistry, physics, and the computers we've built using the mathmatics and technology we've learned to explore the stars will all come forward. To think that the only people who make scientific discoveries are those who seek science as a hobby is naive. Discovery is almost always made in seeking the answer to a problem, a question, or a mistake. Anyone who tells you that science for science's sake is a productive is either trying to get money from you without showing results or is buying into the lottery.
Re:I get it but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I always love the irony-meter overload of someone disputing the validity of the standard model via the medium of a computer, which is composed of transistors, which rely totally on the standard model being valid. I imagine irony-meters also contain transistors.