Major Scientific Discovery on Extrasolar Planets

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...in true marsupial fashion."</font><br /><br />If you're going to keep on using this expression, you'll have to explain it to those of us who are not as erudite as you. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"but they're not finding earth again."</font><br /><br />Please stop impying that the entire field of extrasolar planetology is there for the sole purpose of finding "Earth again". Of course, this is the aspect that the general public, and so the public media, will be attracted to. But that is no reason for those of us who have broader interests to fixate, as you have (in a negative way), on that aspect.<br /><br />Cataloging the various types of planets, their abundance and distribution is a standard scientific persuit. And of course we will be on the lookout for any that could concievably support life as we know it. That would mean looking for "Earth-like" planets. There should be millions of them out there. What is so taboo about looking for them? Life may or may not be rare. Planets physically resembling the Earth in size and composition should not be. But let's collect the data and get the numbers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thermionic]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>undoubtedly there are trillions of rocky planets, some with atmospheres, orbiting other suns. and who cares. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I guess you're not big on gaining knowledge for the sake of understanding. But then I guess since you already 'undoubtedly' have knowledge about the existance of things that our technology is just now on the edge of being able to detect, the advancement of knowledge must not be that exciting for you.

 

[bonzelite]

i like astronomical pioneering as much as the next guy. i crave it and can't wait for new horizons at pluto and beyond. as well as the giant planet finder telescope.<br /><br />we're just not finding earth with gravitational lensing or by anything humanly available technologically. gravitational lensing itself is highly overstated as to it's legitimacy as an applied science.

 

[yevaud]

Well, the problem is severalfold.<br /><br />Gravitational Lensing is a rare chance occurrance. That they were able to use such an effect (also used as a confirmation of some of Einstein's theories) to do this is a remarkable achievement. But it *is* a chance occurance.<br /><br />So we're currently where we can't detect anything or image anything below many Jovian Masses. But...<br /><br />In following years further advances in optics, processing, and so on promise to bring the size of the body we can detect down to an Earthlike mass, and close in to it's primary as well.<br /><br />After all, the problem here with this nascent science is <i>Engineering</i>, not <i>Science</i>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />After all, the problem here with this nascent science is Engineering, not Science.</font><br /><br />as well, the problem is overstating the scientific legitimacy of gravitational lensing as an effective source of data. it ain't what it is cracked up to be. that is what i am saying. they're trying to push this off onto finding evidence for dark matter and all kinds of fantasy objects. in many cases, such lensing is probably not even occurring.<br /><br />its another pop-sci term that is highly overstated <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

I am afraid that is correct. Mind you, it's a great scientific feat, but repeating it is dependent on chance configuration, and they just don't occur every day.<br /><br />But on the flip-side, it's a feather in the cap of these people, and they should receive the accolades for it. Me, I figure that any positive news-story of this nature is a good thing. It helps retain public interest, and keeps funding in place.<br /><br />So...well done to them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

agreed. <br />

 

[robnissen]

Bonzelite doesn't want to give any credit to this discovery because that would imply that relativity is correct. Bonzelite correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you would say all of the following statements are false:<br /><br />1. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light.<br />2. Gravity is the most important force in the universe at large distances.<br />3. Red shift is an accurate way to measure distances to far away objects.<br />4. Our universe began with the big bang.<br />5. Black holes exist.<br /><br />As it is my belief that you think the five previous statements are all false, your opinions about science really aren't terribly interesting to me.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Bonzelite doesn't want to give any credit to this discovery because that would imply that relativity is correct. Bonzelite correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you would say all of the following statements are false: <br /><br />1. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. <br />2. Gravity is the most important force in the universe at large distances. <br />3. Red shift is an accurate way to measure distances to far away objects. <br />4. Our universe began with the big bang. <br />5. Black holes exist. <br /></font><br /><br />you've listed what looks like the ten commandments minus five. i think the bible has 10 commandments. go back and check and list the other five so we can continue prayer service tonight on SDC. there's a spaghetti dinner after, so don't delay. <br /><br />amen.<br /><br />actually, make commandments 6 - 10 just item 5 repeated again and again. that is my favorite one <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />time dilation has been proven to exist. but some of these commandments --errr, well... uhhh.....<br /><br />keep the faith, Rob

 

[centsworth_II]

Oooooh...bonzelite. I may have to put you on my "do not attempt to reason with" list.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Under our fairly new standards underway within SDC's science forums, it would be a really good thing if you can back those up. I for one am curious:<br /><br />Why you think the velocity limit of "C" can be violated.<br />Why you think Singularities don't exist.<br />Why you think gravity is *not* the driving force of the universe.<br />Why you think the Big Bang didn't occur.<br />What you think is wrong with Red-shifting.<br /><br />One at a time, please. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow"> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that in any planet-sized chunk of generic rocky material radioactive heating is an unavoidable, physical fact. </font><br /><br />First of all, we can't even guess if it has a sufficient metal core to <b> be </b> molten. Its mass is inferred, but a much larger body in terms of diameter, composed of rock and silicates could fit the bill.<br /><br />I'm just saying that with the tiny bit of information we have, assuming that the information is even accurate, it's speculative at best to make a statement that such a world *is* geologically active.<br /><br />That's what I dislke about these "stunning discoveries". A speculative cascade occurs. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[paulanderson]

<i>"Please stop impying that the entire field of extrasolar planetology is there for the sole purpose of finding "Earth again". Of course, this is the aspect that the general public, and so the public media, will be attracted to. But that is no reason for those of us who have broader interests to fixate, as you have (in a negative way), on that aspect.<br /><br />Cataloging the various types of planets, their abundance and distribution is a standard scientific persuit. And of course we will be on the lookout for any that could concievably support life as we know it. That would mean looking for "Earth-like" planets. There should be millions of them out there. What is so taboo about looking for them? Life may or may not be rare. Planets physically resembling the Earth in size and composition should not be. But let's collect the data and get the numbers."</i><br /><br /><br />Exactly. And also as you pointed out, the planet was identified by multiple astronomers, independently, even though the event itself was short-lived. That is highly significant in my book. Once Kepler, etc. get into orbit, finding smaller planets like this may become routine (I hope!).

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />Under our fairly new standards underway within SDC's science forums, it would be a really good thing if you can back those up. I for one am curious</font><br /><br />church is in session.<br /><br />i have as much faith that the five commandments can be untrue as much as you have faith that they are true. <br /><br />--i think c can be violated because i feel events within spacetime can be non-local. i think teleportation is possible and inevitable. it's been done in a lab already, violating no laws. it is only a matter of time until it is done over vast distances. this will supercede spacecraft-only technology and make interstellar travel accessible.<br /><br />--i think singularities work fine on paper and in conversation but are absolutely objects of fantasy. it's fun to discuss, though. i maintain that an infinite state is indivisible and unable to be added to, or subtracted from, to bring about a diminshed, or enlarged, infinite state. such reasoning such as hawking radiation, a theory, is unapplicable and appended to an already theortical entity --a pyramid of theories to describe a fantasy.<br /> <br />--gravity is important and is indeed a driving force, but is largely misunderstood as it's nature is still very much elusive, hence the continuing hunt for definitive evidence of the graviton and gravity waves --implied by general relativiy to exist-- but has yet to materialize. as well, galaxies are observed to have radial velocities that remain flat from center to outermost region --a total violation of Kepler. therefore, mass must gradually and <i>perfectly incrementally so</i> increase from the center outward ---> and it doesn't. therefore, they invoke this magic crystal of <i>dark matter</i> to make up for this faux pas. and dark matter = fantasy. conclusion: gravity isn't the only guy running the show.<br /> <br />--the big bang is basically the same thing as arguing for singularities and black holes. singularity = bb; singula

 

[yevaud]

That "Church is in session" stuff is unneccessary, thanks.<br /><br /><i>--i think c can be violated because i feel events within spacetime can be non-local. i think teleportation is possible and inevitable. it's been done in a lab already, violating no laws. it is only a matter of time until it is done over vast distances. this will supercede spacecraft-only technology and make interstellar travel accessible.</i><br /><br />So far it can't be violated. What you're talking of is Quantum Entanglement, and it does have limitations. The one that shows that useful information can't be transferred else it violates causality, mainly. And so far, this appears to exactly be the case.<br /><br />So no, it didn't violate any laws. It also doesn't apply to the laws you seem to believe it does either.<br /><br /><i>--i think singularities work fine on paper and in conversation but are absolutely objects of fantasy. it's fun to discuss, though. i maintain that an infinite state is indivisible and unable to be added to, or subtracted from, to bring about a diminshed, or enlarged, infinite state. such reasoning such as hawking radiation, a theory, is unapplicable and appended to an already theortical entity --a pyramid of theories to describe a fantasy.</i><br /><br />I suppose the people who have observed the effects of Singularities in action would have something to say about that. In fact, yet another news story about Singularities, just 3 days ago, here at SDC: Full Story<br /><br /><i>--gravity is important and is indeed a driving force, but is largely misunderstood as it's nature is still very much elusive, hence the continuing hunt for definitive evidence of the graviton and gravity waves --implied by general relativiy to exist-- but has yet to materialize. as well, galaxies are observed to have radial velocities that remain flat from center to outermost region --a total violation of Keple</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...we can't even guess if it has a sufficient metal core to be molten."</font><br />The question of a metalic core is apart from that of a hot core. Slicates can be hot and molten just as well as metals. The only reason a core would tend to be metal is that,being heavier, the metals would sink to the core. The more metals in the original accreted material, the larger the eventual metal core. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...it's speculative at best to make a statement that such a world *is* geologically active."</font><br />All speculation aside, I'm just wondering about the straight physics of the situation. Will a solid body of a certain mass <b>necessarilly</b> have a hot interior due to a combination of pressure, radioactivity, tidal stress, and heat of accretion? I don't know the answer but I found this interesting bit at <br />http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/learn/planets/planetary_formation/size.ssi<br /><br /><i>"Planets are hot on the inside from their initial force of formation and because of the amount of radioactive materials they have in them. Space is cold. Heat is constantly being lost from the inside of a planet to the outside and out into space. The rate at which heat is lost depends on the size of the world....<br /><br />Mercury, Mars, and the Moon are like the 3 small cups of coffee. They are small worlds that lose heat rapidly. As they cool down, internal heat stops affecting the solid surface. This slows and eventually stops the creation of faulting, volcanoes, and other interesting geological features.<br /><br />Earth is much larger than these other worlds, so it is like the supersized coffee mug. There is a high internal temerature inside our planet, meaning the Earth still has active heat loss. The interior of our planet is in constant gentle motion, with warm parts rising to the surface and cold parts</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...the planet was identified by multiple astronomers, independently, even though the event itself was short-lived. That is highly significant in my book."</font><br /><br />I see the situation as similar to the study of gamma ray bursts of which observations are also short-lived and not reproducible. I don't recall any outrage at the "lack of substance" of gamma ray burst studies. Interesting. <br /><br />I understand a reaction against fantasies of an earth-like planet taken too far, but not against the science of the original observations. Of course there are uncertainties, that's what error bars are for. Describing the uncertainties and attempting to reduce them by refining the observational technique is all part of the science. In this case, as has been abundantly pointed out, there is no chance to refine the observations of the same planet. But as with the gamma ray burst studies, the observations will become better and the error bars smaller with continued observations of future events. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Science is like air: you can ignore it, but it's absence catches up to you awfully fast...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[thalion]

I'd be willing to be that even a metal-poor planet with 5 times Earth's mass would be a geological powerhouse, from leftover heat of formation alone. The planet might represent a fascinating environment: cryogenic external temperatures with a hyperactive surface. Imagine what we could learn if we found a similar bad boy closer to home...

 

[yevaud]

Ah. I had to go back and read what he posted first.<br /><br />Essentially that's correct. There is no favored outcome for a planet having a sufficiently molten core that it is both geologically active and has a temperature close to our average (minus greenhouse effect) global temperature. Mars clearly shows us that.<br /><br />So chance would give many outcomes for the properties of that body. Now a mass 5 times that of Earth would guarentee some core activity if for no other reason than that due to pressure. But it equally may not be much, and depending on the bodies age and composition, may well have long since "shut down" in the same way Mars did.<br /><br />Really hard to say with respect to this finding as yet. Far too little information. Still a stunning achievement though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"On the one hand you compare a coffee pot to thermodynamics, and then .....in the other you hold an iceball ....."</font><br /><br />As they say, you can't tell a book by its cover. Or as I might be saying in a few years: "There may be snow on the roof, but there's a fire in the furnace."<br /><br />As the article I linked states, it is a clear, unequivical fact of nature that newly formed planets are hot bodies in cold space. It's not surprising that the next stage is a <b>hot body</b> with a <b>cold surface</b>. The only question is how long the interior of the planet stays hot. From the example of the 4 plus billion year old Earth, quite a while. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<i><font color="yellow">"I'd be willing to [bet] that even a metal-poor planet with 5 times Earth's mass would be a geological powerhouse, from leftover heat of formation alone." -- Thalion</font><br /> <br /><font color="yellow">"Now a mass 5 times that of Earth would guarentee some core activity if for no other reason than that due to pressure." -- Yevaud</font>/i><br /><br />Thank you. That's two votes for a hot core, based on two different causes -- heat of formation and pressure. Both of which are undeniable facts of nature. Throw in heat of radioactive decay and you've got a trifecta of reasons that the planet's interior absolutely <b>must</b> be hot. Saying that it is cold is the gross speculation!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...depending on the [body's] age and composition, [it] may well have long since 'shut down' in the same way Mars did."</font><br />Why compare a planet five times as massive as Earth to Mars? Mars shut down mainly due to its size. The new planet obviously does not suffer that problem. And don't underestimate the ability of a blob of molten rock several times the mass of earth to hold onto its heat, especially after being insulated from space by a thickening crust of ice and rock.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

No, not just size. Mars appears to also have a dearth of the radioactive elements required to keep a core molten and generating heat. Which is what I'd meant when I stated "composition." So clearly, it is not always the case that a planet-sized body will have a molten core <i>for many billions of years</i>.<br /><br />Now certainly, the range of what a world's composition is in large part dependent on where it formed - inner worlds appear to usually be quite rocky, tending toward gas giants as you move outwards from the primary.<br /><br />Or do they? This has already been thrown into question by some of the previous extrasolar planetary discoveries, which in some cases show gas giants orbiting very close in.<br /><br />So the point here is that it could equally be a fairly cold planet, with little activity at it's core. Size isn't always the do-all end-all in these matters. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

Isn't this planet somewhere near the galactic core? The best information I have on that is that that is where OGLE was looking. That's a metal poor region.<br /><br />Still, I rather imagine that 5 Earth masses would trump any differences in compostion. This is too small to be a gas planet, so there had to be enough oxygen and carbon to make ices.<br /><br />The star is likely old, so at the time it formed, most metals would have come from Type II supernovae rather than red giants or Type I supernovae. So there should be <i>more</i> uranium and thorium compared to iron, carbon, and oxygen. I would have to vote for a hot core.