Astronomers Detect 'Waterworld With a Boiling Ocean' in Deep Space (theguardian.com) 25
Astronomers have observed a distant planet that could be entirely covered in a deep water ocean, in findings that advance the search for habitable conditions beyond Earth. From a report: The observations, by Nasa's James Webb space telescope (JWST), revealed water vapour and chemical signatures of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the exoplanet, which is twice Earth's radius and about 70 light years away. This chemical mix is consistent with a water world where the ocean would span the entire surface, and a hydrogen-rich atmosphere, according to researchers from the University of Cambridge, although they do not envisage a balmy, inviting seascape. "The ocean could be upwards of 100 degrees [Celsius] or more," said Prof Nikku Madhusudhan, who led the analysis. At high atmospheric pressure, an ocean this hot could still be liquid, "but it's not clear if it would be habitable," he added.
This interpretation is favoured in a paper published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters, but is disputed by a Canadian team that made additional observations of the same exoplanet, which is known as TOI-270 d. They detected the same atmospheric chemicals but argue the planet would be too hot for liquid water -- possibly 4,000C -- and instead would feature a rocky surface topped by an incredibly dense atmosphere of hydrogen and water vapour. Whichever view wins out, these latest observations showcase the stunning insights James Webb is giving into the nature of planets beyond our solar system. The telescope captures the starlight that has been filtered through the atmospheres of orbiting planets to give detailed breakdowns of the chemical elements present. From this, astronomers can build up a picture of conditions at a planet's surface -- and the likelihood of life being able to survive there.
This interpretation is favoured in a paper published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters, but is disputed by a Canadian team that made additional observations of the same exoplanet, which is known as TOI-270 d. They detected the same atmospheric chemicals but argue the planet would be too hot for liquid water -- possibly 4,000C -- and instead would feature a rocky surface topped by an incredibly dense atmosphere of hydrogen and water vapour. Whichever view wins out, these latest observations showcase the stunning insights James Webb is giving into the nature of planets beyond our solar system. The telescope captures the starlight that has been filtered through the atmospheres of orbiting planets to give detailed breakdowns of the chemical elements present. From this, astronomers can build up a picture of conditions at a planet's surface -- and the likelihood of life being able to survive there.
It's starting to sink in... (Score:3)
...that those "Class M Planets" that all look like the Vasquez Rocks of Southern California are, in actuality, vanishingly rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Minshara-class.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: It's starting to sink in... (Score:1)
Maybe yes, maybe no. The big, hot, and way too close to their star to be habitable ones are the easiest to detect.
Re: It's starting to sink in... (Score:4, Interesting)
If some power-law such as Titius-Bode law or some more accurate model is even remotely true, that planets are distributed in multiple orbits of increasing orbit. And there does not be many rules on where the big planets end up in those orbits, only that stable systems tend to have orbits that don't perturb each other much and fall into some kind of orbital resonance. If we're only looking at planets close to a star, there are probably one to a dozen more planets that we aren't seeing. In a very real way our observations are missing half or more of the full picture of a planetary system.
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis added.
While the underlying physics of building a stellar and planetary system seem simple, it looks as if the process is extremely contingency-dependent.
The physics and chemistry of rocks - igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary are also relatively simple. But that results in an arbitrarily large number of actual types - so much so that you can spend a working lifetime on trying to describe them let alone
Re: (Score:2)
It's not tautology, it's rhetorical noting to connect the reader to the definition. The following sentence describes the purpose of leading the reader through the definition.
“You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone.” — Marcus Aurelius
Actually Surprisingly Common (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "Earth-like" planets. We know what Earth is like. We don't know what range(s) of conditions life can inhabit - we only know that conditions on Earth are one viable solution. There may be thousands of other meanings of "habitable", of which we know nothing meaningful from our one example. "More data needed."
Well, if you include the criterion
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean "Earth-like" planets.
No, I meant what I wrote. Potentially habitable means might be inhabitable by humans, not any type of life that might exist. We have absolutely no idea at all whether any of these planets is actually Earth-like. All we know is that they are in the orbital zone where they get a similar amount of solar radiation to Earth. We also have no clue what range of life is possible so we have no way to determine what planets may be inhabitable by lifeforms we have no knowledge of - indeed we know so little of the pot
Re: (Score:2)
...that those "Class M Planets" that all look like the Vasquez Rocks of Southern California are, in actuality, vanishingly rare.
On the bright side if the depths are cooler and nutrient rich life could still exist there.
And occasionally they would stray too high and end up surfacing as freshly cooked seafood.
So not California... but still not a bad place to visit if you bring a well insulated boat and a long handled colander.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the depths be cooler?
Earth's ocean depths are pretty close to average surface temperature - 2 to 4 degrees C. (I've measured it on a number of occasions for geothermal gradient measurements in hydrocarbon evaluation.) Once you start to get much deeper (say, 20km instead of Earth's maximum of just 10km), you'll start seeing the effect of the Earth's (or this "hycean" planet's) inner heat coming out. Which wi
"Dry land is a myth!" (Score:3)
"Dry land is a myth!"
Re: (Score:3)
Kevin Costner, on the other hand, is all too real.
I bet most of these crazy press releases (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not the worst or most depressing thing in the news, so I'm happy for the distraction.
The latest from Magrathea (Score:4, Funny)
A planet whose oceans are filled with a liquid that is almost, but not entirely, unlike tea.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know.. 100 degrees C sounds fairly tea-like. You just need to add some dry plant leave bits to it.
That said IF there are any microorganisms living on that planet: they would be hella scary for us, as high temperatures don't disinfect them,
And humans can't really go swimming in that water if you were to visit.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't there some speculation that life on earth started around undersea vents? Which are decidedly hotter than 212f.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. There's plenty of stuff living around those vents now as well.
01011001 - "y" (Score:1)
Does Arjen Lucassen know something that we don't ?