Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Signs Of Water Found On Distant Planets 158

Posted by Hemos from the putting-it-together dept.
nphillips writes "According to this article at CNN, an Italian team has found evidence of water on three planetary systems. The team used a 32-meter radio telescope to search for water maser emissions, telltale microwaves which could indicate water in a planet's atmosphere when it is bathed in the infrared light of its star."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Signs Of Water Found On Distant Planets More

Signs Of Water Found On Distant Planets

Comments Filter:

  • groan (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kin_korn_karn ( 466864 )
    1) water maser emissions? Geez, what's next, they can smell it from here?

    2) how far away are these planets? Are they far enough away that by the time these "maser emissions" get to us that the water is gone?

    • Re:groan (Score:5, Informative)

      by br0ck ( 237309 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:59PM (#4282825)
      1) water maser emissions? Geez, what's next, they can smell it from here?

      I wonder if they only look for water? Wouldn't there be other elements they could detect using the same methods?

      2) how far away are these planets? Are they far enough away that by the time these "maser emissions" get to us that the water is gone?

      Most extrasolar planets are less than 150 light years away which is nothing in geologic time. Refer to The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia [harvard.edu] for more information. The finding of the 100th extrasolar planet was reported yesterday [discovery.com].

      • Um, water is only key to life as we know it. Other forms of life might not give 2 shits about water.
        • Of the hard science-fiction versions of what life in very different environments might look like, my favorite is the one put forth by physicist Robert Forward in the books Dragon's Egg and Starquake.

          The books posit life evolving on the surface of a neutron star. Some of the consequences include an almost unimaginable difference in timescales - a few minutes in our perception are equivalent to centuries of time on the surface of the neutron star, and the very process of studying the evolving intelligent life their ends up motivating that life's progress into high technology and space travel. I won't give away much more of the books, but I'll suggest it as some of the best Mind Candy I've read in a while.

          • Forgive me, but i must.

            The core idea was almost certainly plagiarized in the Voyager episode "Blink of an Eye [startrek.com]"
          • a few minutes in our perception are equivalent to centuries of time on the surface of the neutron star

            You have this backwards. Relativity tells us that a few minutes in a powerful gravitational field (such as a neutron star), would be centuries by our standards.

            • Don't tell it to me, tell it to Robert Forward, physicist and science-fiction author.
            • a few minutes in our perception are equivalent to centuries of time on the surface of the neutron star

              You have this backwards. Relativity tells us that a few minutes in a powerful gravitational field (such as a neutron star), would be centuries by our standards.

              Actually, you're both right.

              Gravitational time dilation makes time pass more slowly on the surface of a neutron star.

              However, nuclear reactions are many, many orders of magnitude faster than chemical reactions.

              The net result is that despite being at the bottom of a powerful gravity well, neutron star life, if it could exist, would think and evolve much, much faster than the biological life observing it.

              Given that neutron stars are typically as old as most other celestial objects, a corollary is that if life on neutron stars is possible at all, it almost certainly exists and has evolved to any final stable state it's going to on every star capable of supporting it at all.
      • Most extrasolar planets are less than 150 light years away...

        Not to be picky, but wouldn't that be just the ones we know about? Might there not be one or two outside that radius, perhaps?

        (Yeah, it was an asshole thing to point out, but I was in the mood...)

        • I was referring only to the planets that have been found and are being checked for water. Sorry about the confusion.
    • Does this have anything to do with spectrograph analysis? According to Kirchoff, you can detect the bright emission signatures of various chemical components from the radiation of low-density gasses at high temperatures, or the aborbtion lines of low density gases at low temperatures, but there's a few problems here:

      1) Water is a liquid, which when heated to high temperatures produces a conituous spectrum

      2) They are using radio telescopes, not visible light telescopes

      They mentioned passing through the infrared emissions of nearby stars...I wonder if that would cause some kind of absorbtion pattern. I'd be really interested in learning how all of this maser business works.

      • Re:groan (Score:3, Informative)

        by photonic ( 584757 )
        In the original article [newscientist.com] in New Scientist they say:
        His team used the 32-metre Medicina radio telescope near Bologna to look for water "maser" emissions. These are telltale microwaves that might come from water in a planet's atmosphere when it is bathed in the infrared light of its star.
        Microwave radiation has a wavelength of some centimeters, infrared is in the micrometer range. It is thus probably not absorption, but fluorescence they are looking at.

    • Re:groan (Score:1)

      by ajs ( 35943 )
      Worse, the last time we thought we'd discovered extrasolar planets, it was later demonstrated that they may have simply been darker areas of the star. This time, so-called planetary water is probably just some grad-student who sneezed near the equipment :)

      Seriously, I have some very strong doubts about what we can tell about a planet that's further out than, say, Uranus. When we can produce detailed maps of surface of one of the larger chunks of rock out in our solor system's Oort cloud, I'll buy that we can begin to take stock in some of the measurements we're making of objects in nearby systems.
      • We can tell what elements reside in stars. Why doubt that the same technology can tell us what resides in planets orbiting those stars? You don't have to build a visual map of an object to tell what it's made of.
      • There are reportedly 100 plus "extrasolar" planets now listed somewhere. The jury is also still out on the sunspot theory for that recent find. The original finders are reportedly investigating further and don't agree with "sunpots." Right at the moment I think the Italian announcement may be the ONLY disucssion regarding an extrasolar planet that is using apparently direct evidence. The majority of these planets are identified indirectly through the effects they reportedly have on their respective stars.

        Presently the most likely kind of planet that would be detected beyond the solar system will be very large and likely have an excentric orbit, or else orbit very close to the parent star. This is merely a limitation imposed by the available methods for finding them, which are best suited for finding massive planets orbiting relatively small stars. Another few years and astronomers may be imaging or otherwise detecting smaller, earthlike planets, but not yet.

        I think the single most important lesson that the detection of all these new planets provides is directed to the nature of our own system. Initially we knew the sun was pretty average as stars go. The most reasonable view would be that statistically the solar system as a whole was likely to be pretty average as well, but we were stuck with a sample of one, which is not very helpful since we live here. The place is important to us, but is it unique in the universe or boringly typical? Physically it is now begining to look as if our home system is very average. This implies interesting things about the occurrence of life in the universe, but offers a worrisome view of the presence or absence of intelligence.

        Life is likely to be common. The more we know about it, the more it appears that life might be nearly inevitable and that at least bacterial-level life might be common, an average trait of average solar systems. For instance, the jury is still out on Mars, but each new piece of evidence seems to make it more possible, if not yet probable that bacteria-like forms may live or have lived there. The recent discussion about the nature of apparent biogenic magnetite in Martian meteorites, is interesting and suggestive, though non-life-based processes that are non-existent, or very, very uncommon, on earth still cannot be ruled out. However, if two local planets do indeed prove to have indigenous life, and if as the mounting data suggests, planets are common, then there is also a mounting likelihood that life is common throughout the universe. The flip side though is that the absence of evidence of other intelligence out there may mean that in the longer run, intelligence has yet to prove adaptive for life forms.

      • Re:groan (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RayBender ( 525745 )
        Actually, there has been a direct detection; one of the extra-solar planets (HD 209458) has been observed to transit. That means they've obseved the dip in brightness of the parent star when it gets (partially) eclipsed by the planet. It's a very, very solid detection (there is a gorgeous light-curve taken with HST). Check out this link [obspm.fr] for more info, e.g. the light curve is available through a link at the bottom of the page.

        I would say that is a pretty direct detection, as Charbonneau et al. have even detected sodium in the atmosphere of that planet.

        The issue you are talking about concerns one star out of close to a hundred with planet candidates. Don't be so quick to dismiss some very nice work that people (several independent groups) have been doing for years now. You start to sound like a crank

  • no big deal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Squarewav ( 241189 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:44PM (#4282687)
    Its cool they found a method for finding water on other planets, but its no surprise that their is water, what earth was the only planet in the universe to be hit by a comet ;)

  • Bastard Italians. (Score:5, Funny)

    by sinserve ( 455889 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:44PM (#4282694)
    Those Italians are so fond of their wansy pansy "aqua minerale" and stupid diet food. Give
    that R&D money to our Irish astronomers and they will find planets with beer and whiskey.

    • Give that R&D money to our Irish astronomers and they will find planets with beer and whiskey.

      I have no idea how you go about finding planets equipped with beer and whisky but I'm willing to give it a go.

      • I have no idea how you go about finding planets equipped with beer and whisky but I'm willing to give it a go.

        Well if you drink too much, you either fall flat on your face, staring into a planet; or you fall on your back, staring at the lights in the sky, which are spinning around and around, which must mean they are planets.

        • Oh yeah, you're right (Score:4, Funny)

          by Subcarrier ( 262294 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @01:03PM (#4282846)
          Well if you drink too much, you either fall flat on your face, staring into a planet;

          That's how I found planet Earth! Don't quite remember where I came from... I do remember that planets smell kind of funny. And they have bits of sausage on them. And cucumber. Definately cucumber. Well known scientific fact.
      • I have no idea how you go about finding planets equipped with beer and whisky but I'm willing to give it a go.

        I don't know about planets, but a number of UFO's are sighted this way. (In the deep south of the USA, as the stereotype goes)
    • Yeah, who needs water when we've found ALCOHOL IN SPACE. [bbc.co.uk]
  • Some ppl really think we're the only planet with living beings? The universe is endless (or REALLY big at least), why would we be alone, or be the only planet which has water?
    • It is even said to be infinite.

      Which means there is an infinite number of inhabited planets, right?

      Of course, this means the population count of the universe is 0.

      ...well, according to the Guide anyway...

  • I bet those wacky Ice Pirates are already on their way to this planet! We need to write Congress to encourage them to build a spaceship to beat them to it!
    • We've already seen how badly congress works with spaceships (i.e., the X33)

      If you want REAL results from congress, tell them that they are Music Pirates and they will find a way to make a law to destroy them instead, or at least drive them screaming from our quadrant of space when the ensuing crush of lawyers hits them.
  • Based on the symmetry principal one would have to presume the existance of one thing: tiki bars.

  • Artist's concept of an extrasolar planet (Score:3, Funny)

    by nucal ( 561664 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:45PM (#4282702)
    Looks a little like Jupiter, if you ask me ....

  • interstellar bathing suit (Score:5, Funny)

    by pizza_milkshake ( 580452 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:47PM (#4282714)
    note: the Italian team was unable to find signs of interstellar beer, which signifies that there is indeed no intelligent life out there.

  • Adams was right... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:48PM (#4282723)
    Yet another reason for "And don't forget to bring a towel!"

  • in the universe combined in a gravitational well, hydrogen and oxygen. Given that we've found water on tens of our solar system objects (Mars, comets, Europa, etc), the only surprising thing would be to not find water in another solar system.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:51PM (#4282759)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Rare Earth covers this (Score:3, Informative)

    by anewman ( 516584 ) <asn82@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @12:54PM (#4282782)
    Read Rare Earth, it shows that water has been found on some distant planets (or variations thereof). My personal take is that life is out there, but in extremaphile form (simple life forms that can exist in extremely hot/cold environments, live off sulfur, etc...)
    • Funny how we look for life that fits into the parameters of our own planet's environment. Obviously if life exists elsewhere, it evolved to live within the parameters of its own environment.

      If you put a dry sponge in water and wring it out, you get water. However, put the same dry sponge in a bucket of paint and wring it out, and you wont get water. ;)

  • Hooray (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @01:03PM (#4282841) Journal
    Another CNN 'science' article about some guy who *MAY* have found something that *COULD* be important. *POSSIBLE* *MAYBE* *SORTA* *KINDA*

    They're always so eager to publish anything by anyone in a lab coat who's in need of funding.

    And of course there's nothing informative to explain what the story means.

    Ie; What the hell is a maser? What does it emit? Am I the only one reading CNN that isn't an astrophysisist?

    And inevitably, a few days later, they publish a 'follow-up' article which retracts everything they said. "Meteor to hit earth in 3 days!" "Another Moon Found" "Meteor actually not going to hit earth" "Moon is really dog-doo on a stick"

    Meh.

    • Maser emissions detecting things. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @01:19PM (#4282962)
      Ie; What the hell is a maser? What does it emit? Am I the only one reading CNN that isn't an astrophysisist?

      A "maser" is the microwave equivalent of a laser, operating on rotational energy states instead of vibrational states or electron shell jumps. Ammonia is what was used in the first maser built on earth, but other chemicals work too.

      Maser action occurs naturally under various conditions. The one I remember reading about was maser emissions from the outer envelopes of (if I recall correctly) red giant stars, as these are cool enough to have molecular matter instead of plasma in the outermost layers.

      Detection of a water maser in a distant star system definitely indicates that water is there. Whether it's in the upper atmospheres of planets or just in the outer layers of the host star is another question.
    • MASER = Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Like a LASER, just with microwaves.

    • Answers (Score:3, Funny)

      by Pac ( 9516 )
      What the hell is a maser? Microwave Amplification by Stimulation Emission of Radiation [stanford.edu].

      What does it emit? Photons. Actually, if you don't know which particle some phenomenon emits, answering "photons" gives you the best chance to be right.

      Am I the only one reading CNN that isn't an astrophysisist? Probably. This is Slashdot. Those of us who do not hold a degree in astrophysics could, if we wanted to, but then again we don't and couldn't care less, but that has never kept our mouths shut about anything, has it? Just assume every post starts with a virtual IANAA, except were noticed otherwise.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Another problem (Score:3, Informative)

      by gnarly ( 133072 )
      Another problem is that one of the "planets" where water "may" have been found, isn't a planet, and the other is a "maybe planet".

      Lalande 21185: No paper reporting a planet around this star has yet been published, although there was a "SORTA KINDA" statement made about 5 years ago.

      Eps Eri: Is a maybe planet. See here [exoplanets.org]

      The planets around Upsilon Andromedae are however not in question. But it is not clear from the article that they are detecting masers on each (or any) of the planets. They should be able to detect clear periodic doppler signals as each of the planets orbits.

  • The story was very short on details. It looks like a promising discovery, but hard to tell from the brief article. Does anyone have a reference with more details?
  • Does anyone really grok in fullness the implications of water on another planet?

  • Water, water everywhere (S&T this month) (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The latest issue of Sky and Telescope (subscription print version) has an excellent article on H20 as a ubiquitous phenomena in the universe.
    Excellent read re: this topic.
  • It's a misdirection so they can steal your arctic circle candy!

  • Better Article (Score:3, Informative)

    by blacklite001 ( 453622 ) on Wednesday September 18, 2002 @01:51PM (#4283241)
    CNN really sucks about things like this. The New Scientist article [newscientist.com] is much better.
  • maser (as in 'water maser')

    Main Entry: maser
    Pronunciation: 'mA-z&r
    Function: noun
    Etymology: microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation
    Date: 1955
    : a device or object that emits coherent microwave radiation produced by the natural oscillations of atoms or molecules between energy levels

  • I just love these information packed articles that Slashdot points to.

    Come'on! If your going to put up a topic that is worthy of Slashdot, atleast refer to a story that actually has more information than the subject line!
  • And ice? And some pretzels.
  • Okay, this is wonderful, this is great. There are planets with water out there. What are we trying to achieve here?

    We're trying to find out if there's life outside of the planet Earth. How do we plan on doing that?

    Yes, we look for the telltale signs of a planet similar to our own. What if a planet has an oxygen atmosphere? What if it has water? What if the temperature was suitable for people like us?

    But then what? I suppose we'll send radio waves there, hoping that there's someone developed enough that will hear us out, and send something back. Fantastic.

    But what if there isn't life like that there? What if there's mass levels of forests, or oceans filled with derivatives of fish? What if there's only single celled life there, or creatures that wrap around the celebral cortex like in Star Trek 2?

    How do we plan to prove that there's life there? I've heard that one looks for signs of methane (I don't exactly know why), or something else along that manner. But would anything like that be conclusive? Doubtful.

    I seriously doubt we'd find anything using these methods, especially considering that we're limiting ourselves to planets like our own. Life, on the smallest scales, can exist anywhere. I presume the question here is, can it be made anywhere?

    The only way to find out is to go there. Too bad that by doing so we'd be contaminating the atmosphere with bacteria of our own. Oh well. The mystery lives on.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Close