Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

First habitable Earth like planet outside Solar System discovered
Zeenews.com ^ | April 24, 2007

Posted on 04/24/2007 1:41:01 PM PDT by Sopater

Munich, April 24: An international team of astronomers from Switzerland, France and Portugal have discovered the most Earth-like planet outside our Solar System to date.

The planet has a radius only 50 percent larger than Earth and is very likely to contain liquid water on its surface.

The research team used the European Southern Observatory’s (ESO’s) 3.6-m telescope to discover the super-Earth, which has a mass about five times that of the Earth and orbits a red dwarf already known to harbour a Neptune-mass planet.

Astronomers believe there is a strong possibility in the presence of a third planet with a mass about eight times that of the Earth in the system.

However, unlike our Earth, this planet takes only 13 days to complete one orbit round its star. It is also 14 times closer to its star than the Earth is from the Sun.

However, since its host star, the red dwarf Gliese 581, is smaller and colder than the Sun – and thus less luminous – the planet lies in the habitable zone, the region around a star where water could be liquid!

“We have estimated that the mean temperature of this super-Earth lies between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius, and water would thus be liquid,” said Stéphane Udry from the Geneva Observatory, Switzerland and lead-author of the paper in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

“Moreover, its radius should be only 1.5 times the Earth’s radius, and models predict that the planet should be either rocky – like our Earth – or covered with oceans,” he said.

“Liquid water is critical to life as we know it and because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life. On the treasure map of the Universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X,” added Xavier Delfosse, a member of the team from Grenoble University, France.

According to the research team, the host star, Gliese 581, is among the 100 closest stars to us, located only 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra (“the Scales”).

The star has a mass only one third that of the Sun. Such red dwarfs are at least 50 times intrinsically fainter than the Sun and are the most common stars in our Galaxy. Among the 100 closest stars to the Sun, 80 belong to this class.

“Red dwarfs are ideal targets for the search for such planets because they emit less light, and the habitable zone is thus much closer to them than it is around the Sun. Any planets that lie in this zone are more easily detected with the radial-velocity method, the most successful in detecting exoplanets,” said Xavier Bonfils, a co-worker from Lisbon University.

Bureau Report


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: exoplanet; exoplanets; gliese581; libra; planet; science; space; xplanet; xplanets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last
To: Arthalion
Maybe, maybe not. Mercury isn’t tidally locked, and it’s a lot closer to the Sun than this planet is claimed to be.

Actually it is. It just happens to have such a high eccentricity, the tidal lock is not a 1:1.

161 posted on 04/25/2007 9:59:23 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
ooops...

vp = sqrt(1.5*re*0.2*ae) = 0.55 * sqrt(re*ae)

162 posted on 04/25/2007 10:00:59 AM PDT by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner
I suggest we immediately send Al Gore on a space shuttle to investigate.

Good idea, in priciple, but we might wanna check for babes before sending al.


163 posted on 04/25/2007 10:11:29 AM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mtg

mtg:

Habitable or not... could we just send all the liberals there?

I think the citizens there might NOT want LIBERALS there!! :)


164 posted on 04/25/2007 10:24:37 AM PDT by EagleandLiberty (AirAmerica -- a whole owned company of CP USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Hmmm

Theoretically, an Orion Project-type ship could get there in about 25-40 years. More research should be made into the feasible of FTL travel, though.

Richard Bronson going to start service to it? LOL


165 posted on 04/25/2007 10:31:54 AM PDT by EagleandLiberty (AirAmerica -- a whole owned company of CP USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: leadhead

Their football team would be AWESOME. ^_^


166 posted on 04/25/2007 11:50:00 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Stultis

One of my favorite movies.
Loved her innocent look (and the short dress).

But we don’t have to worry about Al Gore activating the Krell machinery, because it reads brainwaves.


167 posted on 04/25/2007 1:01:33 PM PDT by Waverunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: HeadOn

The big problem with this is that it’s so close to the red sun that the tidal pull would probably cause the same side of the planet to face the sun all of the time, much like the moon always has the same side to the earth. Thus, one side would be scortched, the other would be freezing.


168 posted on 04/25/2007 1:04:07 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Yep. Really heavy, sunburned, and getting no sleep ‘cause it never gets dark... I think I’ll stay here.

Have a great evening.


169 posted on 04/25/2007 1:44:45 PM PDT by HeadOn (Who needs a tagline? I got this nice little place to type stuff, and I don't want to fill it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: 3niner; spunkets
Actually, spunkets' formula is completely correct. It doesn't matter whether the planet has a 10 mile radius or a radius of 1.5 Earths (roughly 6,000 miles), if you are at a distance of 1.5 Earths from the center of mass, the gravitational pull is the same.

So, you're saying that if you were to dig a hole to within 10' of the center of the earth (allowing that you'd have to reinforce the walls), that the subjective force would be greater than at the surface? Yes, the total gravity exerting itself on you would be greater, but a portion (in this case, a large one) would be countered by opposing gravitational force. One isn't attracted by a center of gravity, but by each individual bit of mass in the universe, including the planet portions lateral to you and (in the example) above you. Gravimetric studies on Earth will sometimes make use of the effect by being conducted adjacent to large dense mountains.

As spunkets pointed out, the inverse square law applies.

While my skipping past my original off-the-cuff-statement referencing 5Gs may suggest otherwise, I agree. I was merely saying that it seemed incomplete.

It also doesn't matter that all planets are denser toward the center, than near the surface. Gravitational anomalies (masses at the same depth with different densities) have a slight effect, but they would not be noticable to you.

That does make it different, more like the idealized example I gave.

Rotation would also be insignificant, unless the planet has a very fast rotational velocity. On the Earth's Equator, you are travelling around the Earth at about 1,000 miles per hour, but you can stand at the Equator, or at one of the Poles, and not notice the difference in weight (you are slightly heavier at the Poles).

The rotation effect may indeed be important. What that rotation is at the stated distance from its star is largely dependent upon the age of the system - which I don't have the information to estimate. Large bodies close-in to other large bodies have a tendency to rotate surprisingly fast - potentially much faster than earth. On the other hand, in an old system, the planet could have transferred its rotational energy to its orbital energy in the same way that our Moon appears to have, making it tidally locked. Most probably it is somewhere in between. Where, I couldn't say.

This is simple Newtonian Statics and Dynamics, which is normally covered in the first quarter of college physics. Those who take physics in high school are likely to learn this before they get to college.

No need to get snooty, snippy, and snotty. My logic problem was much more fundemental than that: It's been a while since I formally studied physics and so I worked from a mental model of an idealized mass. The Earth and nearly all other significant bodies are spheroids or discs, so the issue I had in mind was already primarily taken into account.

170 posted on 04/25/2007 2:03:50 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
If it’s too great, the system won’t form, and the greater it is, the longer it takes to form.

That would indeed suggest that for a larger body generally the spin could indeed be much greater than for a smaller body...since if it's greater, the body would have less time to become tidally locked.

So...if this thing is rapidly rotating, and it has a nuclear core, along with the 13 day years for seasons, perhaps the estimate isn't too far-fetched, as its day/night temperatures would be less extreme than on earth (obviously the unknown atmosphere factors in), near the equator its gravity would be more reasonable, and it'd probably have a very powerful magnetic field to protect it from many of the solar effects.

That pic does look like the equitorial radius might be ~17% greater than the polar radius though. That’s if it’s a pic of the planet and it’s not been distorted by a pic edit. In that case, the gravitational force at the surface would be would be 1.8, instead of 2.2.

Granted the caveats, that's a huge difference. One that begins to put it down into the plausible range.

171 posted on 04/25/2007 2:18:32 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

Yes, but there is no evidence that one can get the requisite extra negative mass to build the Alcubierre warp drive, or open a stable wormhole. The creation of negative mass (which does happen in certain quantum mechanical events) is always accompanied by the creation nearby of a larger positive mass.


172 posted on 04/25/2007 2:19:04 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: lepton
So, you're saying that if you were to dig a hole to within 10' of the center of the earth (allowing that you'd have to reinforce the walls), that the subjective force would be greater than at the surface?

No! Only the mass below you will contribute to the gravitational attraction, your weight would be nearly nothing. Isaac Newton proved this shortly after he invented calculus.

I don't have time to go through everything you've said, point by point. Suffice it to say that spunkets' answer was completely correct to two significant digits, which is perhaps a bit more precision than is justified by the data given.

If you really want to understand this, in detail, see if you can audit an astrophysics class at a good university.

173 posted on 04/25/2007 2:29:01 PM PDT by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
What’s the formula from mass to Gs?

Assuming no other differences, same volume and shape and 5*mass = 5Gs. however, if the size changes it roughly follows the inverse-square rule, with some minor modifications for distribution/shape and rotation effects in extreme circumstances. Above, Spunket suggests that if the picture of the planet is accurate, and that the distortion is caused by rotation effects that the rotation may reduce the subjective gravity by about 0.4Gs - which is some pretty extreme spinning.

174 posted on 04/25/2007 2:29:27 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The toll on the human body has got to be more than simply weighing more. A 100 lb person weighing 220 lb could still walk around, but it would seem that all the weight bearing joints would be under far more stress and would deteriorate much more quickly.

The bones would also become denser as the microfracturing that goes on all the time normally would be enhanced and result in much heavier bones. Then you'd have more robust tendons and ligaments, and muscles, and so forth - all increasing your mass even further. Falling down would be more injurious, even with the stronger structure.

175 posted on 04/25/2007 2:34:33 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ukie55; spunkets; Godebert
Does the mass of the planet directly corelate to the atmosheric pressure?

So what about Godebert's question? What effect would this have on atmospheric pressure, assuming an Earth-like atmosphere since it's supposed to be habitable.

The same amount of atmosphere would be more pressure, however the larger variant is simply how much atmoshpere there is. Take Venus, for example - its gravitational pull is much less than Earth's however its atmosphere is crushing as it simply has more atmosphere. What the increased gavity would do would be to make the habitable range much narrower by elevation than here on Earth, as the atmosphere would be squashed.

176 posted on 04/25/2007 2:39:35 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Telescopes capable of analyzing planets like this, earthlike, are nearing launch. This and hundreds more will be analyzed for proper atmosphere as well as the presence of life within a decade.

Based upon what was popping up at the end of GHWB's term, I'm surprised we don't have a half-kilometer synthetic aperture telescope in space by now. We'd be able to see continents.

177 posted on 04/25/2007 2:44:41 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
That means the centifugal acceleration at the equator is 0.2, and opposes the acceleration of gravity. So any mass m will be attracted to the surface with a force(F) of m*2*aearth

Thanks for showing the math there.

178 posted on 04/25/2007 2:51:51 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
See #150. The atmosphere just represents a mass. Pressure is force/area, so the fator is 2.0. So, for all things equal, the atmospheric pressure there would be twice Earth's, or 29.4psi.

Heh. I started from the opposite end - where what really matters is how much atmosphere there is to be exerted on.

179 posted on 04/25/2007 2:54:03 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Yes, but there is no evidence that one can get the requisite extra negative mass to build the Alcubierre warp drive, or open a stable wormhole.

Granted, there is not enough research into the phenomenon to know if it can even be done, but we won't know until it's investigated more thoroughly.
180 posted on 04/25/2007 2:56:08 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Eph 6:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson