Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: 17 Billion Minimum - Holy Frak!

  1. #1

    Default 17 Billion Minimum - Holy Frak!

    17 Billion Earth-Size Alien Planets Inhabit Milky Way

    This story was updated at 1:55 p.m. EST.
    The Milky Way hosts at least 17 billion Earth-size alien planets, and probably many more, a new study reveals.
    Astronomers have determined that about 17 percent of stars in our galaxy harbor a roughly Earth-size exoplanet in a close orbit. Since there are 100 billion or so stars in the Milky Way, that works out to a minimum of 17 billion small, rocky alien worlds, or an Earth-size planet around one of every six stars.

    And there are probably many more such planets orbiting at greater distances from their stars, some of which may even be "alien Earths" capable of supporting life as we know it.

    "These kind of rocky objects are everywhere," team member Francois Fressin, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), told reporters today (Jan. 7) during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Long Beach, Calif. [The Strangest Alien Planets (Gallery)]

    Crunching the numbers
    The research team conducted an analysis of data collected by NASA's planet-hunting Kepler Space Telescope.
    Kepler detects alien worlds by noting the telltale dips in brightness caused when planets cross the face of — or transit — their parent stars from the instrument's perspective. The telescope, which launched in March 2009, flagged more than 2,700 potential planets in its first 22 months of operation, more than 100 of which have been confirmed to date.


    The research team wanted to know how complete and accurate Kepler's survey has been — that is, what percentage of its finds are real, and how many planets is it likely missing? So they came up with a simulation that mimicked the telescope's work, finding that about 90 percent of its detections are probably the real deal.

    "There is a list of astrophysical configurations that can mimic planet signals, but altogether, they can only account for one-tenth of the huge number of Kepler candidates," Fressin said in a statement. "All the other signals are bona-fide planets."

    The study has been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.


    Planets, planets everywhere
    Using information from both the actual and simulated Kepler surveys, the team calculated some estimates about how common different types of planets are thoughout the Milky Way.

    They determined, for example, that 17 percent of stars have a planet 0.8 to 1.25 times the size of Earth in tight orbits, with periods of 85 days or less. About 25 percent of stars have a so-called "super-Earth" (worlds 1.25 to 2 times as big as our own) in an orbit of 150 days or less — the same percentage that hosts a "mini-Neptune" (a planet 2 to 4 times Earth's size) with an orbital period up to 250 days.

    Big planets such as Saturn or Jupiter are far less common. Only 5 percent of stars harbor a gas giant with an orbital period of 400 days or less, researchers said.

    Overall, the team found that about 50 percent of all stars in the Milky Way have a planet the size of Earth or larger in a tight orbit. Extrapolation and incorporation of data from other instruments suggest that virtually all sun-like stars host planets, Fressin said.

    Further, stars don't have to be sun-like to host an Earth-size world. The team also determined that small and medium-size exoplanets are commonly found around red dwarfs as well, which are smaller and cooler than our star.
    "Earths and super-Earths aren’t picky," said co-author Guillermo Torres, also of the CfA. "We’re finding them in all kinds of neighborhoods."

    Kepler generally requires three planetary transits to flag a potential alien world. Since more tightly orbiting planets transit more frequently, the telescope's early findings have been biased toward close-in worlds. But as Kepler continues to operate, it should find more and more planets farther from their host stars — including, perhaps, Earth-size worlds in Earthlike orbits.
    Kepler rocks. I swear I read in Science magazine last year that the current estimate was there is closer to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, revised up from about 200 to 250 Billion..... Anyway, that's a lot of friggin' planets either way. But where are all the people?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #2
    I hate to be the ass sitting on the enthusiasm, but I don't really think it's too surprising that there are many other chunks of rock that happen to be the same size as our chunk of rock. It's the life-supporting characteristics that interest me the most.

  3. #3
    It's not about the surprise, it's about the confirmation (although the numbers may be summat surprising).
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  4. #4
    Fair enough. I guess maybe the universe is so unimaginably large that confirming big numbers don't really surprise me compared to confirming a small number, as in how many other planets support life.

  5. #5
    20 years ago, or less, there was no evidence for planets anywhere in the universe except here. Now we have direct evidence for a few thousand or so, and enough data to say there's at least tens of billions similar to the rocky planets of Sol. If you've been interested in this stuff for going on 4 decades you get to appreciate the explosion of knowledge. In twenty more years we'll easily be looking at the chemical components of the atmospheres of millions of nearby worlds. And that will likely let us deduce if there's anything alive there. We're close to answering a pretty Big Question. It's exciting.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Fair enough. I guess maybe the universe is so unimaginably large that confirming big numbers don't really surprise me compared to confirming a small number, as in how many other planets support life.
    I guess the key word here is Milky Way. Because that is quite a bit smaller than the universe.
    "Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    In twenty more years we'll easily be looking at the chemical components of the atmospheres of millions of nearby worlds. And that will likely let us deduce if there's anything alive there. We're close to answering a pretty Big Question. It's exciting.
    I'm not saying that this won't be the case, but I'm generally skeptical that in twenty years we'll be able to do that. Aren't many exoplanets detected through the stars gravitational "wobble?"

    There's no accounting for future technology, but using current science, wouldn't that make detecting the composition of the exoplanet's atmosphere impossible?
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 01-08-2013 at 10:43 PM.

  8. #8
    They're currently playing around with techniques that involve analyzing the light of a star as a planet transits in front of it to deduce things like the chemical composition, pressure, temperature and so on of atmospheres of exoplanets and have had a few successes, such as detecting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of a gas giant 65 light years away. If anything, 20 years is conservative.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    They're currently playing around with techniques that involve analyzing the light of a star as a planet transits in front of it to deduce things like the chemical composition, pressure, temperature and so on of atmospheres of exoplanets and have had a few successes, such as detecting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of a gas giant 65 light years away. If anything, 20 years is conservative.
    I'm happy to be wrong.

  10. #10
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm happy to be wrong.
    Now...how to get there and can we do the Free State project there?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm not saying that this won't be the case, but I'm generally skeptical that in twenty years we'll be able to do that. Aren't many exoplanets detected through the stars gravitational "wobble?"

    There's no accounting for future technology, but using current science, wouldn't that make detecting the composition of the exoplanet's atmosphere impossible?
    Adding to what Steely said, the James Webb space telescope, if that ever gets around to launching, should much better than anything we can do currently. It's supposed to be good enough to get atmospheric readings on earth-likes in the habitable zone around stars that aren't too far out. (I have no idea what qualifies as "too far out"). The telescope has been plagued by delays, but it should still be out this decade.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Wraith View Post
    Adding to what Steely said, the James Webb space telescope, if that ever gets around to launching, should much better than anything we can do currently. It's supposed to be good enough to get atmospheric readings on earth-likes in the habitable zone around stars that aren't too far out. (I have no idea what qualifies as "too far out"). The telescope has been plagued by delays, but it should still be out this decade.
    I think it's absolutely incredible that we can determine so much information from the minute changes in light from distant stars.

    Science can be breathtaking.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I think it's absolutely incredible that we can determine so much information from the minute changes in light from distant stars.

    Science can be breathtaking.

  14. #14
    Current technology isn't the limiting factor for detecting and analyzing exoplanets. The problem is money, of course. This is a big one sci-fi got wrong. Used to be we generally thought the only way to get to know the planets of another star was to go there. Reality is that before we ever set foot on a world even so close as Mars we could conceivably have identified other worlds around other stars with likely biospheres - or even industry. It's all in the air.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  15. #15
    Sci-fi failed to predict the internet, so it's hardly the only thing they got wrong.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Sci-fi failed to predict the internet, so it's hardly the only thing they got wrong.
    mark twain did it in 1898
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Sci-fi failed to predict the internet, so it's hardly the only thing they got wrong.
    Uh, I didn't really say or even imply it was....
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  18. #18
    At least one of them has gotta have Wookies, right?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •