Jump to content


Photo

New Planet Discovered!


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Prodigy

Prodigy
  • Members
  • 48 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Projects:Projects? I'm too lazy
  •  Huh?

Posted 30 January 2006 - 07:23 PM

Smallest Earth-like planet found
By Rebecca Morelle
BBC News science reporter

An artist's impression of the new planet (ESO)
Scientists used the microlensing technique to find the new planet
An international team of astronomers has found the smallest Earth-like planet yet outside our Solar System.

The new planet has five times the Earth's mass and can be found about 25,000 light-years away in the Milky Way, orbiting a red dwarf star.

The discovery, reported in the journal Nature, was made using a method called microlensing, which can detect far-off planets with an Earth-like mass.

The planet's cold temperatures make the chance of finding life very unlikely.

The planet, which goes by the name OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, takes about 10 years to orbit its parent star, a red dwarf which is similar to the Sun but cooler and smaller.

It is in the same galaxy as Earth, the Milky Way, but is found closer to the galactic centre.

Albert Einstein

Like Earth, it has a rocky core and probably a thin atmosphere, but its large orbit and cool parent star mean it is a very cold world.

Predicted surface temperatures are minus 220 degrees Celcius (-364F), meaning that its surface is likely to be layer of frozen liquid. It may therefore resemble a more massive version of Pluto.

"This is very exciting and important," said Professor Michael Bode from Liverpool John Moores University, a principal investigator for the RoboNet project which collaborated on this research.

"This is the most Earth-like planet we have discovered to date, in terms of its mass and the distance from its parent star," he told BBC News.

"Most of the other planets that have been discovered are either much more massive, much hotter or both."

The microlensing technique used to find this planet was first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1912.

Microlensing occurs when a massive object in space, like a star, crosses in front of another more distant star.

As it passes, the gravity from the foreground object bends the light coming from the background star, temporarily making it look brighter. This usually lasts for about a month.


How can we prove there is life on a distant planet when we have problems seeing if there is life on Mars?
Dr Martin Dominik, University of St Andrews

If the foreground star has a planet orbiting it, it will distort the light even more, and will make the star behind it look even brighter. But this effect lasts for a much shorter period, giving astronomers just hours or days to detect it.

Dr Martin Dominik from the University of St Andrews is a co-leader of the PLANET collaboration, one of the microlensing networks used to detect the new planet.

"We first saw the usual brightening reaching a peak magnification on 31 July 2005. On 10 August, however, there was a small 'flash' lasting about half a day," he said.

"By succeeding in catching this anomaly with two of the telescopes of our network and with careful monitoring, we were able to conclude that the lens star is accompanied by a low-mass planet."

Life on Earth

The discovery was the joint effort of three microlensing campaigns, PLANET/RoboNet, OGLE and MOA, and involved researchers from 12 countries.

So far, about 160 planets have been found outside our Solar System, but only three of them have been located using the microlensing technique.

Recent simulations of planet formation suggest that bodies with an Earth-like mass are abundant. Scientists are attempting to discover more new worlds using this technique and are looking for ways to refine it further.

Dr Nicholas Rattenbury, from Jodrell Bank Observatory in Liverpool, a member of the MOA microlensing collaboration, points out: "We could take this research forward by building a network of bigger telescopes around the world to make us more efficient at detecting these Earth-like planets."

If planets are found with conditions similar to our own planet, then the next step would be to begin the search for life, but this might not prove easy.

"To prove there is life on a far-off planet would be difficult," Dr Dominik told the BBC News website.

"How can we prove there is life on a distant planet when we have problems seeing if there is life on Mars?"


160? Woa! SHouldn't this be the front page news?
Favorite Artists:Blink 182, Sum 41, The Offspring, 2pac, Prodigy, Nirvana, Fatboy Slim e.t.c
Treat everyone the same untill you find out that they're an idiot
God kills the ones that love life, but spares the ones who hate it...

#2 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:36 PM

Not really. It's not like it matters whether they've found 160 or a million. It's interesting to have found the planets, but nothing that could be even conceived as being unexpected.

They've been there forever. It's only now as we develop higher tech and means of finding them that we are actually finding them.

Hubble Telescope's been discovering planets for decades.


Wonder if they've seen us yet... ;)

#3 crave22

crave22

    sup dawg

  • Project Team
  • 4,295 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Projects:Feeding Myself to a Koala
  •  Retired RPG Guild Staff

Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:54 PM

Actually, they haven't been there forever. ;)

Anyways...
It is interesting to know, but more or less useless. I guarantee out of those 160, less than 2% of them could even be semi-capable of holding life. The universe is a cold, lonely place. The odds of finding a life supporting world out of a million is slim. Out of 160? Near impossible.

However, you know that warp engine that is being discussed in that other thread? Well, if the theory holds up, we could be visiting these far-off worlds within the next twenty years. That helps narrow the odds a little bit.
Posted Image

#4 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 30 January 2006 - 09:14 PM

Some criticism of BBC. The leading scientists studying this planet are not sure that it's orbiting a red dwarf, but this writer certainly is. Also it's a bit late.
While yes, we've found 160 planets and only located 3, most of them are gas giants and we've only found a few rocky ones. Popular Science ran an article on that a couple months ago. This planet's only considered the most earth-like because it's solid and big, and there's no way there's life on it. Just like the person they quoted said, it's a big version of Pluto.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#5 Az3r^

Az3r^

    Resident Fan Boy/Tester

  • Members
  • 2,325 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Nothing Atm .
  •  Oldbie Slacker since August 03

Posted 05 February 2006 - 01:12 AM

maybe there is loads of other planets,just outside our solar system and a possiblity of life and being able to support it, but end of the day... its getting there and having the money time and resources.
Quotes :
Paradox @ Ali - "And what the fuck would you know? Ever been? Oh no, sorry, your map says 'HERE BE DRAGONS' anywhere outside of your rock"

#6 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 05 February 2006 - 03:06 PM

There are a couple research institutes that run tests like that, and NASA also has a program to do that. No rocky planets really, except for this one, that's why it's remarkable.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#7 link.the.first

link.the.first

    Supreme commander

  • Project Team
  • 3,577 posts
  • Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
  • Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
  •  You want a piece of me boy?

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:22 PM

I wonder if gas giants will ever turn into rocky planets. That's how stars start; a giant cloud of gas that eventually condenses into a star. Besides, there has to be a rocky core somewhere in there to have the gravity to hold the gases there.

Also, we're only confined to seeing our little corner of the galaxy, so yes there are probably lots and lots of rocky planets out there we won't be able to see this lifetime.
Posted Image

#8 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:33 PM

I wonder if gas giants will ever turn into rocky planets. That's how stars start; a giant cloud of gas that eventually condenses into a star. Besides, there has to be a rocky core somewhere in there to have the gravity to hold the gases there.

Also, we're only confined to seeing our little corner of the galaxy, so yes there are probably lots and lots of rocky planets out there we won't be able to see this lifetime.


I doubt they'll condense to the point they become rock. They might become solid variants of their gases, or become seas of that element, but rock really requires a molten inner core to exist/have existed at some point, and a lot of solid matter to account for the rock.

Bear in mind that there are more stars in our galaxy than there are grains of sand on the Earth. And that that is just ONE galaxy of millions. It's just too vast to comprehend, and the idea that there aren't other planets like Earth with life on them, even within our own galaxy, is laughable.

#9 link.the.first

link.the.first

    Supreme commander

  • Project Team
  • 3,577 posts
  • Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
  • Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
  •  You want a piece of me boy?

Posted 05 February 2006 - 05:44 PM

Agreed.

Chances of all variables being right to form life: 1 in 999,999,999,999,999,999

Number of chances (planets) to get it right: 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999...

Who still thinks we're the only ones with life on our rock?
Posted Image

#10 crave22

crave22

    sup dawg

  • Project Team
  • 4,295 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Projects:Feeding Myself to a Koala
  •  Retired RPG Guild Staff

Posted 06 February 2006 - 12:21 AM

I never did. There must be life out there.

Also, about gas giants...
There is a theory I heard about where the inner planets may have had massive gas atmospheres like the outer planets (excluding Pluto, of course, but there's another theory to explain Pluto). However, it is believed solar wind, for lack of better words, blew these gases away, leaving the rock. So gas giants probably do have rocky cores.
Posted Image

#11 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 06 February 2006 - 10:46 PM

I never did. There must be life out there.

Also, about gas giants...
There is a theory I heard about where the inner planets may have had massive gas atmospheres like the outer planets (excluding Pluto, of course, but there's another theory to explain Pluto). However, it is believed solar wind, for lack of better words, blew these gases away, leaving the rock. So gas giants probably do have rocky cores.

It's a known fact that they do have rocky cores. As for inner planets with massive gas atmosphere, it's unlikely solar wind could shear that off.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#12 Redfox1701

Redfox1701
  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 15 February 2006 - 03:28 AM

I wonder if gas giants will ever turn into rocky planets. That's how stars start; a giant cloud of gas that eventually condenses into a star. Besides, there has to be a rocky core somewhere in there to have the gravity to hold the gases there.

Also, we're only confined to seeing our little corner of the galaxy, so yes there are probably lots and lots of rocky planets out there we won't be able to see this lifetime.


We can actually see pretty far into the past. Read "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. Also look up the Drake Equation. That should solve all you guys problems.

#13 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 15 February 2006 - 12:47 PM

I have read An Elegant Universe, it's about string theory and quantum mechanics, not planets.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#14 link.the.first

link.the.first

    Supreme commander

  • Project Team
  • 3,577 posts
  • Location:West Palm Beach, Florida
  • Projects:War Games Moderator (UNSC), Dragon Slayers Moderator (Link)
  •  You want a piece of me boy?

Posted 28 February 2006 - 11:49 PM

I never did. There must be life out there.

Also, about gas giants...
There is a theory I heard about where the inner planets may have had massive gas atmospheres like the outer planets (excluding Pluto, of course, but there's another theory to explain Pluto). However, it is believed solar wind, for lack of better words, blew these gases away, leaving the rock. So gas giants probably do have rocky cores.


I doubt solar winds would just blow the gases away. I think those planets simply don't have enough gravity to hold a noticeable amount of gas to the planet. My guess is that Jupiter and Saturn have a thick atmosphere because they have a lot more gravity and can hold a thicker atmosphere to them.
Posted Image

#15 Fighting Phantom

Fighting Phantom

    That guy who posts too much

  • Project Team
  • 546 posts
  • Projects:V|GO beta testing, Phantom Generals
  •  The

Posted 07 April 2006 - 05:26 AM

Actually, they haven't been there forever. :D

Anyways...
It is interesting to know, but more or less useless. I guarantee out of those 160, less than 2% of them could even be semi-capable of holding life. The universe is a cold, lonely place. The odds of finding a life supporting world out of a million is slim. Out of 160? Near impossible.

However, you know that warp engine that is being discussed in that other thread? Well, if the theory holds up, we could be visiting these far-off worlds within the next twenty years. That helps narrow the odds a little bit.


Warp Engines you say??? Have my dreams of serving on the SS Voyager come true? ;)
where can i find this tread?

#16 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 07 April 2006 - 10:48 AM

It's out there in this sub-topic. There's another theory that recently came out which calls for space-folding drives using an obscure principle of quantum physics which can't really be proven. The other one is just hyperacceleration using magnets.
Think of the first one like Battlestar Galactica (the new one), and the second as Freelancer-like jump gates.

Edited by MSpencer, 07 April 2006 - 10:49 AM.

Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#17 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 07 April 2006 - 10:54 AM

Hm. The wormhole theory seems most plausible, but if it were true, all black holes would be connected.

I don't think magnets providing hyperacceleration is going to speed things up sufficiently enough to cross large volumes of space.

I also don't see how a warp engine can work. Even if it can, we wont' have it in 20 years. Add a nought to the end, and perhaps, if it's even possible.

#18 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 07 April 2006 - 11:58 PM

There is no wormhole theory. It's shoot yourself across space using huge magnets or fold space. No wormhole.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#19 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 08 April 2006 - 01:34 AM

Why not just build a GLA worker, suspend him, send him to the next planet and build a Tunnel network? Sounds as plausible as warp drive. :ohmy:

#20 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 08 April 2006 - 03:52 AM

It actually has a grounding in physics. Unproven maybe, but better than other proposals. And we're not talking Star Trek warp drive... read the damn thread somewhere around here.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users