Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Newfound Planet Has Earth-Like Orbit 126

Posted by Zonk from the hooray-for-earth dept.
Raver32 writes with a link to the Space.com site, and an article discussing an extra-solar planet that looks a lot like ours from a distance. At least, its orbit does. The planet is located about 300 light years away, in the constellation Perseus. It circles its giant red star every 360 days and was discovered by 'looking for wobble', the shift in a star's movement that hints at orbiting planets. "The discovery could help astronomers understand what will happen to our sun's brood of planets when it exhausts its store of hydrogen fuel and its outer envelope begins to swell. When that happens in an estimated 5 billion years, our sun will be so big that it will engulf the inner planets and most likely Earth. But long before that happens, life on our planet will have perished and its seas will have boiled away."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newfound Planet Has Earth-Like Orbit More

Newfound Planet Has Earth-Like Orbit

Comments Filter:

  • More Exciting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ChromaticDragon ( 1034458 )
    It will be more exciting when they are able to find planets the same size or same mass as ours.

    • Re:More Exciting (Score:4, Funny)

      by ZeroFactorial ( 1025676 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @05:59PM (#20108473)
      In an unexpected turn of events, scientists have discovered that the universe is round and we were actually LOOKING AT OURSELVES through the massive telescope!!!

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Kagura ( 843695 )
        Serious question, if the universe is 'curved' in whatever way it's sometimes hypothesized, would the above be literally possible? If not, would it be possible in a less literal manner?
        • Or how about, if wormholes actually exist, would it be possible to view past events by watching light waves that were finally arriving at the other end of the wormhole?
        • You would have to be at the edge of the spacetime coordinates (WRT the center of the "universe") to have electromagnetic radiation travel in a rough sphere from your postition around the other extremes and back, and it will probably be diffracted into countless directions before then because the passage is far from perfect geometrically. As for the time it would take, that would be 2*PI*R/c where R is the distance from the centre of the universe in light years since inflation began. Or something.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Khashishi ( 775369 )
          No, because you would be looking deep into the past, well before humans or the Earth existed.
          • And who is to say that we aren't wrong in out current theories and the past isn't what we are seeing?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by cyclop ( 780354 )
              Well, if we start by refusing currently accepted theories, we can start go 100% wild and every hypothesis is "valid".
              That is not to say that one day those theories couldn't be proven wrong, but until that day let's stay within the realms of science, instead of that of random fantasy.
        • If you can build a tunnel round the earth, as in dig 10 miles straight down, and then dig ca. 40000 miles following the curvature of earth in one direction, so that you end up where you started, you should be able to use a laserpointer to target your own back of the head, because the normal athmosphere bends light in just the right way.

          P.S. :Real measurements are left as a lesson for the interested reader.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Jimler ( 137140 )

            It would not. Light path isn't bend by the atmosphere, but by grabity, and earth gravity i not big enough to bend that path into an orbit. But what you describe is happening around massive object such as black holes. Light passing near horizon can be bent on a orbit which traps the light around for a short priod of time, until the photon hit something and takes another direciton.

            • Are you sure? My physics teacher back in 10th grade mentioned this while talking about refraction indices. The refraction index of air is not 1, but slightly higher (1.0002926 at STP). The tunnel will be filled with air, not a vacuum. So the light that travels through the atmosphere ist refracted a little bit. I still remember him talking about this in relation to sunrise. And lo and behold :

              Because atmospheric refraction causes the sun to be seen while it is still below the horizon, both sunrise and sunset are, from one point of view, optical illusions.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise [wikipedia.org]

              So light is refracted in an atmosphere (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refractio n [wikipedia.org]), and a tunnel in

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by gomoX ( 618462 )
                Refraction is produced in an interface between 2 different milieus. The sunrise/sunset effect is because the light comes from outside the atmosphere and enters it, therefore producing an angle variation. A laser pointer shot inside the atmoshpere does not experience this effect, because it never changes its propagation milieu. In an homogeneous substance (such as athmospheric air at a given height, like the situation you describe) light travels in a straight line (minus gravitational effects that are hardly

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by Ziwcam ( 766621 )

                  PS: Sorry about the word "milieu", the word i'm looking for is "milieu" in french and "medio" in spanish - i've seen milieu used before in English so I went with that, but I don't know if it's the right word.

                  Literal (and, in this case, proper) translation of that word is "medium".

                  Since the light never moves from one transmission medium to another in the tunnel situation, it is not refracted, and thusly continues in a straight line.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by gomoX ( 618462 )
                    Really? I had actually written down that in the 1st place but tried a google "define: medium" search which rendered only definitions related to the psychic thingy. Stupid TV shows.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by aliquis ( 678370 )
                But the refraction index tells how much the light is bent when it travels from one medium to another, but if the light is already in the atmosphere it wont bend at all. It do bend of when it go from vaccum to air thought (if what you tell is correct), which is why the sun could be seen.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by aliquis ( 678370 )
              Yeah if he where correct we would already be able to see cities far away using binoculars over the atlantic or whatever if there wasn't anything high in the way. From mount everest the whole world would be viewable in all directions, even oneself! :D

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Not really, since mass doesn't really have anything to do with life forming. A planet with a similar sized star and distance from it would be much more interesting, since it would mean similar temperatures, and thus more likely to have liquid water and organic molecules, meaning life.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by kalaf ( 963208 )
        But the kind of life that could live on it would absolutely be affected by mass (i.e. gravity)

      • Re:More Exciting (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @07:28PM (#20109239)
        I'm with the other guy. While mass doesn't directly affect forming of life, I would wonder how intelligent beings would exist on a planet the size of jupiter. They certainly wouldn't be able to be as mobile as the life on earth, unless they had much better ways of getting energy. Even ignoring the fact that the would have to have really strong muscles and bones so that they could move (assuming they had muscles and bones), they would still need a lot of extra energy to move around on such a large planet. Also, for them to do any kind of space travel, escaping from such a large gravity would prove very difficult. Even if they were very intelligent, would they have any thought of flying? Since the gravity would be so strong, I would doubt that there would be any flying animals, or even leaves floating through the air to get the inspiration from.
        • There's a chapter in the Carl Sagan's Cosmos book devoted to this issue.

          The flying life forms depicted there are both logical and beautiful.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rbanffy ( 584143 )
            Agreed.

            But I wouldn't suppose they could develop any form of sophisticated intelligence beyond a dolphin or whale.
        • I'm with the other guy. While mass doesn't directly affect forming of life, I would wonder how intelligent beings would exist on a planet the size of jupiter.
          They certainly wouldn't be able to be as mobile as the life on earth, ...
          --
          Planet couch-potatoe.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by c4miles ( 249464 )
          Gas giants have solid, liquid, and gaseous phases in their planetary sphere, and don't have a surface as such. 'floating' would pose no mobility problem in such an environment, regardless of gravitational forces. Iain M Banks' 'The Algebraist' revolves around a gas giant ecology.
        • There is a region in Jupiter's atmosphere with reasonable temperatures and pressures (room temperature, 10 atm), and gravity there is not too different from Earth either. There may well be life in those regions, and flying/floating is all it would and could do.

          What you're thinking about is what you'd get if you took a rocky planet like Earth, maintained an earth-like atmosphere, and just increased its mass to match Jupiter's; such planets simply are not going to exist.
          • At that depth, have the Sun's rays been completely occluded by the outer layers of the atmosphere?
            • Hard to say, but it doesn't really matter; on Jupiter, at least, there is likely lots of chemical energy available. Think "deep sea life".

              Carl Sagan wrote a paper about possible life on Jupiter.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Have a read of the book Rare Earth by Ward and Brownlee ... they postulate that very, very specific earthlike conditions are likely to be necessary for complex life (i.e. above the single-cell level) to evolve. Basically, life here on earth is the culmination of a series of highly improbable happy accidents (as well as unhappy accidents avoided). The case they make is not 100% convincing IMO, but it's still an enjoyable read.
        • well, considering that life thrives around black smokers, it's only logical that we know little to nothing about what it really takes to harbor life. consider the environment of crushing depths, 0% sunlight penetration, extremely high temperatures and acrid sulfur jets. sounds like a place incapable of supporting life, but there are tube worms, crab, shrimp, and other highly advanced organisms uniquely adapted to the environment. once you find algae, i bet you'll find something that eats algae. from the
  • Yes, perhaps interesting from an academic point of view, but why are we really looking at this? You don't even have to RTFA to know that our planet will be uninhabitable a long, long time before our sun gets to this stage. Why do we care?

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 )
      Why do we care?

      You are welcome not to care, of course. Those of us who do care think this is pretty damn cool.

      Here's my question: if you don't care, why did you bother to read and comment on the story? There's lots of stuff on /. I don't care about -- pretty much the whole Games section, f'rinstance. Instead making snarky posts in stories about World Of Bloodshed XVII: Ultimate Pixelated Flying Guts Edition about how much I don't care, I just don't bother to read those stories. Gamers who do care, of

      • It is interesting to me because we are getting a real look at the makeup of nearby solar systems. Even though planets like ours are still just below our limit of detection we have enough data to show that solar systems like ours (with a Jupiter, a Mars, etc) are not going to be the norm.

        And when you think about it, the planetary systems we are seeing, with lots of big, hot gas giants and their presumed moons, is a far better situation than we might have expected. If we were unlucky, there would be hardly

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by cyclop ( 780354 )

          we have enough data to show that solar systems like ours (with a Jupiter, a Mars, etc) are not going to be the norm.

          Why? We have serious biases in our planet-detection techniques that make the detection of solar systems like our pretty hard, while hot Jupiters are readily and routinely easy to detect. Basically, anything that orbits more than once in a few days and has less than 1 Jupiter mass is damn hard to detect.

          What we're learning is that, probably, there is no "standard" in planetary systems: eac

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by vimh42 ( 981236 )
      Because some people like to understand the world and universe around them. Others wish to remain uninformed. Do as you will.

    • Re:What are we learning here? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @07:05PM (#20109039) Journal
      why are we really looking at this?

      Hey, I always see things I want to study in greater detail when I'm hanging out "looking for wobble".

  • Change in Orbit (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Actually, I have read that the earth may be pushed out to a farther orbit, so we wouldn't get 'swallowed' by an expanding sun.

    • Re:Change in Orbit (Score:5, Informative)

      by pauljlucas ( 529435 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @08:18PM (#20109621) Homepage Journal

      Actually, I have read that the earth may be pushed out to a farther orbit, so we wouldn't get 'swallowed' by an expanding sun.
      Right, because the sun will blow off mass into space. A less-massive sun will have weaker gravity so everything in orbit will move farther out.

      But it probably won't matter much because the sun as a red giant will be far hotter and far more luminous so the orbital distance increase won't be enough to compensate.

      • Re:Change in Orbit (Score:4, Informative)

        by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Saturday August 04, 2007 @05:23AM (#20111973)
        But it probably won't matter much because the sun as a red giant will be far hotter and far more luminous so the orbital distance increase won't be enough to compensate.

        It will be far more luminous, but substantially cooler: around 3000K rather than the current 5800K. It'll still cook the Earth without difficulty, though.

    • And the extra week caused by the longer orbit shall be called "Robot Party Week"

  • A 360-day orbit is all that is earth-like (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The thing is Jupiter or larger in size orbitting a red dwarf.

    I see more and more of these new-found planet stories and building a census is great stuff, but all the stories hype up the earthlike part to new levels of strain to get a headline.

    Call me when we get liquid water and an atmosphere and maybe we can start writing the "Earth-like" headlines.

  • Cool! (Score:2, Funny)

    by nih ( 411096 )
    so does that mean i can skip work on Monday?
    woohoo!

    5 billion years you say?

    ffs :-(

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by OakDragon ( 885217 )

      so does that mean i can skip work on Monday?

      As you can see, it just doesn't matter, ultimately.

  • A Princeton-led research group has discovered an isolated community of bacteria nearly two miles underground that derives all of its energy from the decay of radioactive rocks rather than from sunlight.

    Subterrainian Microbes [planetary.org]

    This type of bacterium, approximately four micrometers in length, has survived for millions of years on chemical food sources that derive from the radioactive decay of minerals in the surrounding rock, making it one of the few creatures known that does not depend on sunlight for nourishment.

    These will survive any surface conditions, until the heat penetrates two miles deep.

    • If so, only briefly if at all. The zone of habitable rock will get higher and higher in the strata as the above surface temperatures rise since the internally generated heat from radioactive decay cannot radiate to the surface and into space, thus raising temperates below ground in lock step with temperatures above ground.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bazorg ( 911295 )
      oh, OK... so everything will be alright. that got some weight off of my shoulders. thanks!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by aliquis ( 678370 )
      But how much of their radioactive food is still there 2-5 billion years from now?

  • To The Stars, Then. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday August 03, 2007 @06:03PM (#20108519) Homepage Journal
    But long before that happens, life on our planet will have perished and its seas will have boiled away.

    Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics,
    and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet
    agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years,
    eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us.
    It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, and Morobuto, and Buddy Holly,
    and Aristophanes...
    all of this... all of this...
    was for nothing.

    Unless we go to the stars.
    - J. Michael Straczynski

    I must be in the mood because there's a box sitting at home for me with The Lost Tales [amazon.com] inside. :) It's been 10 years since I've seen some good new B5, so I may be a bit giddy today.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      If you want to get all depressive, everything suggests that energy is conserved and entropy increases, which means all power sources will eventually fail because there's no more potential. So whether it's in 5 billion years or 100 billion years when the other stars are dead, it doesn't really matter if we go to the stars or not. In any case, it's not like we're in an immidiate hurry to leave, what's more important is finding out if there's anyone else out there.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *
        If you want to get all depressive, everything suggests that energy is conserved and entropy increases, which means all power sources will eventually fail because there's no more potential.

        Don't worry - that's only a problem in this universe, and theory suggests we should be able to signal among the multiverses with gravity. Throw in a little teleportation technology, and voila.
      • For some reason entropy was incredibly low at the point of the big bang. How did that happen? Who knows, but it certainly did happen.

        Are we to believe that it occurred once and it can never occur again given an infinite amount of time?
        • I thought entropy was particularly high at the big bang. Or maybe that's just informational entropy, which is different than the normal entropy that physicists think of. Anyway, infinite informational entropy would mean that we can't have any information from whatever happened before the big bang (if that even made any sense), or from the big bang itself. It's one reason why we can only know about events that happened right after the big bang. Infinite entropy doesn't preserve any information at all from an
        • Might I mention that the rest of the properties of the universe were fairly hostile to life at that point in time? If we start collapsing towards a new Big Bang, power supplies starting to work again probably won't be the most important thing to us. Of course, by the time entropy becomes an issue the way the GPP suggests, we won't be overly worried about that either.
    • Words can't describe how much I've enjoyed B5 over the years and wished for more.
    • Yes, and let's hurry up and do it now, because we're almost out of time!

  • Not going to engulf Earth (Score:5, Informative)

    by teslar ( 706653 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @06:04PM (#20108529)

    When that happens in an estimated 5 billion years, our sun will be so big that it will engulf the inner planets and most likely Earth.
    Actually, this is incorrect. It will engulf the orbits. The planets themselves will just escape to wider orbits. Except Mercury, Mercury's pretty much buggered.

    More Red Giant trivia at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
    • Right... because the planets can climb themselves right out of the Sun's gravity well.
      • Lousy rotten Sun, losing its mass. *Grumble* You could have said current orbits, and I might have had the decency to actually look it up before posting.
    • "Mercury's pretty much buggered."

      By Galacticus' lesser known brother?
    • Not directly related to the poster per se, sorry, but I am still always astonished what gets thrown around as fact when it is really only a scientific hypothesis. We have no idea with any great degree of certainty what will exactly happen if and when our sun gets old and possibly transitions in to a red giant. Relating to the article itself, I think we should spend less time guessing about things in science that we have no hope of proving or disproving at the moment and concentrate on things that we can p
  • Who cares? The people of Omicron Persei VIII, rulers of the galaxy, will destroy us in about a thousand years from now.

  • ... No. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cairnarvon ( 901868 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @06:50PM (#20108919) Homepage
    Just because it orbits in 360 days doesn't mean it has an Earth-like orbit [badastronomy.com].
  • The Bad Astronomy blog has a clearer explanation of what this means (read: not much) over here: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/03/new- planet-with-earthlike-orbit-nah/ [badastronomy.com]

  • Earthlike? Not likely... (Score:5, Informative)

    by _mythdraug_ ( 27158 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @07:18PM (#20109159)
    Earthlike in that it takes approximately the same number of days? Yes.

    Earthlike in any other way? Not likely.

    The Bad Astronomer [badastronomy.com] had a nice examination of this article earlier today.

  • if we can't get there... I know 300 light years away ... not possible in a human life time... Every time I read something like this I can't help but wonder why we keep looking farther and farther instead of spending the resources learning how to travel farther/faster/more efficiently... maybe it's just me but I think being able to get better means of travel is more important than finding things that would take over 300 years to get to traveling at the very fastest possible speed that sciences says would
    • There are lots of reasons to do this. As I mention in my comment above, we are just now, just barely, getting to the point where our catalog of planets is big enough where we can actually start looking at statistics. That in and of itself is amazing! When I got into graduate school, not that long ago, we knew of no extrasolar planets, and by the time I got my degree the first had been discovered. Now there are over 200! We knew very little about planetary formation, and now we see it happening! And we can
  • The Movie: The Reconstituted Remains of the Zeta Rangers Strike Again! (Yet Another Nightmare Production brought to you by the makers of the Vietnam Conflict!) The Time: One Billion Years From Now. The Place: Somewhere off Orion's Shoulder aboard the US Starship Battle Cruiser Dick Cheney heading toward the star with the planet that seems a lot like ours except that it's circling a giant red dwarf sun and there's no life anywhere around: Yet another phony war based on bullshit intelligence brought t
    • No, because NASA will come up with a plan to swap our planets' orbit with with Mars, and we'll be saved.

      Tom

  • Final confirmation of Earth-like planet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Friday August 03, 2007 @08:41PM (#20109805)
    I think this discovery increases the chance that when the Terrestrial Planet Finder satellites go into orbit probably after 2016, we will quickly find a rocky crust planet circling a nearby star (up to 500 light years away) with an atmosphere very much like Earth's. If that is true, then this could be the confirmation that life COULD exist on planets orbiting nearby stars.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ruzel ( 216220 )
      And the unfortunate part is that dumb people will use this as the final confirmation of the fact that God exists, because Look! There's a planet like Earth that could support life but there's no intelligent life on it and that must be because we're special and God made us.

      However, if we started planning now we could tell them all that we've figured out that the new planet we found is where the Garden of Eden was before God banished us here, and then we could ship all the buggers off.
  • Ah yes Looking on my trusty Star Control II map there is life on this planet. Zeta Persei I (Per or Persei is a star in the constellation Perseus) is the home world of the Druuge!
  • Even if it is habitable and/or Earth-like (extremely unlikely, even though the orbit is similar the mass of it could be ridiculously different)I doubt we will got there until we have near instantaneous travel and/or it is our last resort. First of all, we can't afford it or at least no one wants to pay for it. We can't afford and don't have the tech for a manned flight to any other planets in our own solar system, much less one 300 light years away. Also, no government will be willing to send someone there
  • Unless humanity and its derivatives evolve to the point of self-extinction of some insurmountable galactic event wipes out the solar system (e.g. a rogue black hole swallows the entire system) the sun will *never* become a red giant.

    People do *not* understand that once a civilization has become an "advanced technological civilization" (as we are), natural technology developments, esp. molecular nanotechnology, enable the dismantlement of the planets (think swarms of nanorobot miners) and the conversion of the solar system into a Matrioshka Brain. During that time period (centuries to a few million years) a materials shortage develops (one needs *all* those atoms when one starts storing zettabytes and yottabytes of data) and the closest available materials are all harvested -- including a significant fraction of the sun! Remove the material from the sun and it goes from being a G class star to an M class star with a significantly longer lifetime (hundreds of billions of years). The most probable situation in an engineered system is to extract and store much of the Sun's hydrogen and add it back to the star gradually producing a relatively constant fusion reactor power source for a several trillion years. During that time period we have presumably figured out how to navigate the solar system to enable close encounters with undeveloped star systems where we can pick up additional hydrogen resources extending the lifetime of our sun (and the surrounding Matrioshka Brain) until the energy resources of the galaxy are exhausted.

    Once intelligent life arrives on the scene all natural evolutionary vectors (e.g. natural stellar and galactic evolution) are subject to modification. A far more interesting topic for conversation, IMO,is *why*, if 60-70% of the Earth's in our galaxy are significantly older than ours have they not made the KT-I to KT-II transition (converting their systems into Matrioshka Brains in the process)? Or have they? [1]. Note that this is somewhat different from the classical Fermi Question, "Where are they?", which is really derived from "Why aren't they here?" or "Why haven't we heard from them?" and is instead the more modern variant, "Why don't we see more stars disappearing?" Matrioshka Brains can navigate around the galaxy but they don't go solar system hopping on a whim.

    1. "Dark matter" can be explained by the activities of advanced technological civilizations if one sets aside the arguments of theoretical physicists which depend in large part on assumptions of a "natural" universe. I've never observed a theoretical physicist sit down at a table and say, (a) here is a natural (dead) universe and (b) here is a universe developed to its full potential by intelligent civilizations and (c) there must be a phase transition from a dead universe to an engineered universe -- what do our observations tell us about its current state as we look back through its history? Cosmological discussions are inherently incomplete unless they incorporate how intelligence alters the nature of the universe.
    • Convincing people that going to the moon was a hard sell. I wonder how they would react to the idea of dissassembling the entire universe so that the solar system can go nomad.
  • It is an extreme stretch to label a "massive" object around an old star light years away a "planet". It could just as well be a Jupiter Brain. The only things which are known about exo-"planets" are their orbital periods and in various cases their mass (for wobble planets) or their radius (for transit planets). We *assume* that such objects are "natural" and therefore must be "planets" but the older the star the less likely it is that any initial planets would have remained in their "natural" state or th

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close