Richest Planetary System Discovered

[cesarnc]

Astronomers using ESO’s world-leading HARPS instrument have discovered a planetary system containing at least five planets, orbiting the Sun-like star HD 10180. The researchers also have tantalising evidence that two other planets may be present, one of which would have the lowest mass ever found. This would make the system similar to our Solar System in terms of the number of planets (seven as compared to the Solar System’s eight planets). Furthermore, the team also found evidence that the distances of the planets from their star follow a regular pattern, as also seen in our Solar System.

Full Story...
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1035/

The way these advances are going, soon we will be spotting ET gals taking a shower somewhere 40 light years from here LOL

[truthseeker]

gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "peeping Tom"

[Moon]

This is a great discovery and is showing the likelihood that we are not alone is getting smaller every day. Now if we can find a smoking gun on Earth that they have visited us, that will begin a new age of how we look at ourselves in this very vast Universe.

[cesarnc]

But the press (at least here) just goes "oh, look there are planets out there".

We are finding planets like flies in the pig farm. And that's on Milk Way alone!!!

[Jeff Sheets]

If we think of a civilization that is comparable, in time, to ours. Think of it in our current technology terms: This system is 127 light years away. Even at the speed of light, you would still have to live to a very ripe old age to ever reach your destination. We have a long way to go before we can come up with a propulsion system that can do even .1 of lightspeed. Thats 1/100th. That would mean about 1270 years later, a generational ship could make it IF the training cycle is complete and the resulting generations can preserve the knowledge of how to set down.

We can either extend the life of our astronauts or require them to procreate and train to ever explore that system. Thats a dang long time if you ask me.

OK so you could fold space and totally cheat... with a helluva lot of energy.

If the result of folding space is a gamma ray burst, that would explain a very strange phenomena. Sorry off topic...

[Pons Asinorum]

Even at the speed of light, you would still have to live to a very ripe old age to ever reach your destination.

This is the weird thing about the Laws of Relativity. As a traveler approaches the speed of light (traditionally abbreviated as "c" and measured as approx 300,000,000 meters/s or 186,000 miles/s), then the clock aboard the ship would appear to run slower when compared to our clocks on Earth.

For example, if our traveler had a velocity of 25% of the speed of light, he or she would experience 98 years at the end of the journey. For the rest of us on the Earth, 127 years would have elapsed.

Space-time stretches when comparing a stationary frame to a moving frame, relative to each other. A Lorentz Transform is a formula that enables such a calculation to be made.

Here are some more examples (did on excel):

@ a velocity of 0.50 c, the traveler would experience: 73.3 yrs
@ a velocity of 0.60 c, the traveler would experience: 63.5 yrs
@ a velocity of 0.70 c, the traveler would experience: 53.4 yrs
@ a velocity of 0.80 c, the traveler would experience: 42.3 yrs
@ a velocity of 0.90 c, the traveler would experience: 29.1 yrs
@ a velocity of 0.99 c, the traveler would experience: 9.00 yrs (!)

If velocity = c, then zero time would elapse (the universe would appear frozen or non-moving to the traveler, I think).

Something like that anyway, not a hundred percent sure if the maths is correct, but think that is the general idea.

[cesarnc]

The impossibility of velocity=c is that mass also growth with velocity. In such a way that mass -> infinite as velocity -> c

So the energy required for velocity = c would be infinite as well.

But on the time experienced by the travellers, you're right... The faster they go, the slower the time rate.

[Moon]

If we think of a civilization that is comparable, in time, to ours. Think of it in our current technology terms: This system is 127 light years away. Even at the speed of light, you would still have to live to a very ripe old age to ever reach your destination. We have a long way to go before we can come up with a propulsion system that can do even .1 of lightspeed. Thats 1/100th. That would mean about 1270 years later, a generational ship could make it IF the training cycle is complete and the resulting generations can preserve the knowledge of how to set down.

While I agree us here on the Earth cannot do intergalactic travel yet, it should be noted that some other civilizations would be millions if not billions of years ahead of us. If we went back in time just 200 years and told people we could travel and land on the moon and also across the ocean in a few hours, they would think we were crazy. (If it were 300 years, we could be charged with witchcraft.)

I do not think we should apply our limitations to other civilizations. While many would probably be behind us, it is a very good bet just as many would be further along.

The truth is we don't know how far advanced or behind any civilization is, and it will be the greatest discovery ever made once we do.

[Jeff Sheets]

So what is the apparent time at .1c? I am not qualified to check your math, but I think that to an outside observer, anything less than the actual speed of light would take 127 years + whatever the difference between c and actual relative speed, right?

Im just saying that from an outside observer point of view, IF we had a way to overcome the mass increase (as cesarnc says) 127 years is the least amount of time it would take to actually arrive, then another 127 years to get the message to earth that you had succeeded. So at half the speed of light our ground control would still have to wait 381 years for closure on the project.

Meanwhile, as you describe, the crew would have only taken 73.3 years of their life.

My original point was that the distances are extremely vast with our current tech and and that tech is possibly forever limited... If ET came from there, either their lifespan or their tech is much better than ours. Granted.

We are seeing this system as it was 127 years ago...thats cool, a time travelling window to the past. That always amazes me.

Glad to have intelligient folks on the forum!
-Jeff

[Pons Asinorum]

@ Jeff Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:09 am

Totally correct Jeff. The Stationary frame (relative to the traveler) would always perceive time as 127 light years / velocity.

So, at a velocity of 0.10 c, the traveler (in the moving frame) would experience... (excel grinding)... about 115 yrs.

And the observer (in the stationary frame) would experience... 127 yrs c / 0.1 c = 1,270 yrs, as you pointed out.

Also, as you pointed out, if space could be "folded" and then transversed at that point, the net effect would appear to have allowed a velocity faster than c.

Please know I'm not really qualified for this math either, so take everything I state with a grain of salt.

--

And I did make an error on my first example.

@ 0.25 c, the traveler does experience 98 years, but the observer would experience 508 years (not the 127 that I mistakenly stated).

Here is an output from my trusty excel sheet that includes both the moving frame and the stationary frame (or traveler and observer):

@ a velocity of 0.10 c; 115 yrs and 1,270 yrs -- (traveler and observer, respectively).
@ a velocity of 0.20 c; 104 yrs and 635 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.30 c; 93.2 yrs and 423 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.40 c; 83.1 yrs and 318 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.50 c; 73.3 yrs and 254 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.60 c; 63.5 yrs and 212 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.70 c; 53.4 yrs and 181 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.80 c; 42.3 yrs and 159 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.90 c; 29.1 yrs and 141 yrs.
@ a velocity of 0.99 c; 9.00 yrs and 128 yrs.

--

Absolutely correct, Cesarnc -- thanks for pointing that out, and one more parameter; length.

From the stationary frame (observer), the moving frame (traveler) would appear as follows -- time dilates, length contracts, and mass increases. Cudos Einstein!

(And they gave him a "D" in math!)

[Pons Asinorum]

oops -- made a quick edit.

Changed:

@ a velocity of 0.10 c; 73.3 yrs and 1,270 yrs

to:

@ a velocity of 0.10 c; 115 yrs and 1,270 yrs

Sorry about that, my head is elsewhere. I have a plumber working on a big job in my house and he's been here all day finding "stuff" (like $$ for him )

[Jeff Sheets]

FYI: you *CAN* make an edit to your own post if you like, rather than posting again to correct any errors. Just pointing it out in case you didn't notice...look for the edit button on the right.

-Jeff

[Moon]

It is quite possible they have wormhole technology or can surpass the speed of light. Only us humans made a theory stating passing the speed of light was impossible. We are quite limited now, although we have advanced so much.

What will we be able to achieve 1,000 or even 1,000,000 years from now?

Technology is not forever limited, just our perceptions of it.

[cesarnc]

I think the important here is not whether ot not we can go to this planeraty system. But the system's existence itself.

This is an universe with 100 billion galaxies, each one holding 100 billion stars. If we found a planetary system THAT close, odds are that there could be a lot of planetary systems out there.

Quick math: 100bil x 100 bil makes 10^22 stars.

If only a tiny, tiny tiny portion of them have planetary systems, say 1 for each one billion stars, then there are 10 trillion planetary systems in the universe.

next step is to figure out how many of them have planets in the habitable zone.

[Moon]

Agreed, cesarnc! The finding that planets are much more common that previously thought shows gives hope to the possibility of many Earth type planets out there. All kinds of stars previously thought to not be able to have planets have been shown to have them now.

This is an amazing discovery that should help boost the AAT very much.

[cesarnc]

And I bet that our definition of "life" is too restricted, if we think about 10 trillion planetary systems.

"Carbon-made entities who need liquid water to provide the media for chemical reactions needed for metabolist and reproduction".

I put $20 here, RIGHT NOW, as we will find bacteria in the methane oceans of Titan.

And a sign along the shore saying "No smoking area, for obvious reasons" ROFL.

[Pons Asinorum]

If only a tiny, tiny tiny portion of them have planetary systems, say 1 for each one billion stars, then there are 10 trillion planetary systems in the universe.

It's better than that. Of the 473 exoplanets so far discovered, roughly 400 of them are within 326 light-years (or 100 parsecs). Using a stellar density for our neighborhood of 0.120 stars/cubic parsec, one can derive a ratio of:

1 planet for every 1,255 stars.

If that ratio holds up (or even gets smaller, which it should as our technology improves), then our galaxy alone may have upwards of 80 million planets.

(Of course, multiply that by the number of galaxies...8 X 10^18 planets in the universe if the stellar density holds).

--

What I calculated:

Local number of stars = stellar denisty X volume
Local number of stars = 0.120 stars/cubic parsec X (4/3) Pi *100 parscs^3
Local number of stars = 501,896

stars per planet = 501,896 stars / 400 planets = 1,255

Planets in Milky Way = 100,000,000,000 stars / 1,255 stars per planet = 80,000,000

Planets in universe = 100,000,000,000 galaxies X 80,000,000 planets per galaxy = 8 X 10^18

[Ace Rimmer]

This is why it is so extremely hysterical to me when people think our Earth is the only planet is all of this vastness with sentient beings.

[cesarnc]

Planets in universe = 100,000,000,000 galaxies X 80,000,000 planets per galaxy = 8 X 10^18

Even if you apply a huge coeficient of error, there are planets that never end!

[Pons Asinorum]

Even if you apply a huge coeficient of error, there are planets that never end!

Totally agree Cesarnc; given the technological infancy of planet-hunting coupled with the two short decades of searching, the hundreds of worlds discovered so far is undoubtedly a harbinger of colossal numbers yet to come – and that is just in our “neighborhood” alone.

As for the discovery of exo-life, can that truly be far off?

Finding life as we know it has increased dramatically, if Drake’s Equation is valid. One of the variables is the number of stars that have planets orbiting them (called “fp”). In the years before the discovery of the first exoplanet, values of fp were arbitrary and therefore cautiously low – no more, as we now have (growing) empirical evidence that fp is much larger, by orders of magnitude.

One-in-a-billion gives way to one-in-a-thousand (!), and one-in-a-thousand may realistically give way to one-in-a-hundred – as our technology becomes more refined and capable, it is entirely possible that one-in-ten may be proven.

In any event, the first two variables are resolved (or in the case of fp, refined might be a better word); the next variable is the number of worlds that are Earth-like (called “ne”). That one is going to be a mind blower.

[cesarnc]

I watched a show, I think it was The Universe, where they bring up the equation.

But kind of rethinking the "Earth-like" concept.

Much more than a planet comparable in size / mass (=gravity), distance from the star (=liquid water), they talk about the need of a comparable magnetic field for protection against the star's radiation and even about the need of a Jupiter-like planet in the system, to provide gravitational protection (the Shoemaker-Levy event)...

I think there was a couple of other things, I can't recall right now.

It could sort of restrict the number of planets...

But again, maybe the definition of "life" per se could change depending on what we're going to find...

[Pons Asinorum]

I think there was a couple of other things, I can't recall right now.

I like the Universe series too, and yes, I think there is a long list of critical factors. Maybe Earth-like life (ELL) is a long shot, but with a sample size of one, it is kind of hard to know what is absolutely necessary for ELL and what is not. Temperature and water for starters and after that who knows?

Possibly planets that are roughly the mass of the Earth -- in the Goldilocks zone, with a moon, with Jupiter-sized "bodyguards" -- may turn out to be quite common or at least occasional which may mean millions upon millions in this galaxy alone (countless trillions in the universe).

Perhaps ELL may develop on a planet quite different from the Solar System, but with orbital configurations and planetary constructs that conspire to provide equivalent conditions to what transpired on Earth (in terms of radiation shielding, asteroid protection, etc).

Maybe not all those factors are absolutely necessary and on such worlds, life will still develop. Such life may encounter a radically different evolutionary path (or maybe not).

And of course, as you mentioned, life may prove to be entirely different than what we have on Earth.

There is a whole universe of possibilities (maybe ELL *and* non-ELL forms, or nothing at all). There is just no way to know right now, but if one had to make a bet today, that person would be wise not to discount the possibility of ELL forms too much, IMHO.

In any event, it will prove interesting as our planet-detecting technology improves and provides new discoveries.

[cesarnc]

There is a whole universe of possibilities (maybe ELL *and* non-ELL forms, or nothing at all). There is just no way to know right now, but if one had to make a bet today, that person would be wise not to discount the possibility of ELL forms too much, IMHO.

In any event, it will prove interesting as our planet-detecting technology improves and provides new discoveries.

This discussion is fun...

On "ELL". Life here can evolve in the most extreme conditions. From the frozen poles to the hidrotermal vents, HUUUUGGEEE pressure, ultra-high temperature, no light, no oxygen.

If we have found such extremophiles on Mars or Titan, we would have called it "non-ELL".

The question now is: there are living organisms that can evolve in the most extreme conditions found on Earth. Which other extreme conditions (not found on Earth) could life evolve as well?

Ocean of methane, like in Titan? Right below Mars surface? FLOATING ON JUPITER'S ATMOSPHERE???

Once we find the first "crazy" life, it will mean life all over the Universe.

VIVA LA VIDA LOCA!!!

[cesarnc]

Check this out...

http://www.legendarytimes.com/forum/vie ... =9265#9265

[Pons Asinorum]

The article mentions the Mars Science Laboratory mission in 2011. If life was on Mars, this probe may prove it. The suite of instruments on this craft are amazing.

--

Scientists have also detected amino acids (organic carbon compunds)in space and most recently have obtained a sample from a comet.

Although it does not prove anything about life, the galaxy appears rich in such compounds, which are the building blocks of protein. The abundance of such chemistry in space certainly bodes well for the case of carbon based lifeforms.


If we could just fill in the gap from chemistry to biochemistry...

[cesarnc]

Interesting is that DNA is a recipe for proteins, using amino acids.

Now, looking in perspective, it's like the DNA was made to use the amino acids available to build living organisms...

[Pons Asinorum]

Yeah, almost like programming-instructions...

[cesarnc]

There's another interesting thought I read a few time ago.

It was said that it would be nearly impossible for us to meet another intelligent civilization in the Universe, because, if they are made of hostile states (like ours) and they are intelligent, they will discover uranium eventually and will exterminate themselves quickly after.

[Pons Asinorum]

^^^

That is an interesting theme and is in some science fiction stories.

Goes like this -- evolution is dependent on violent force.

An intelligent species that arises out of such a process must be violent.

When (if?) that species develops weapons of mass destruction, and as the technology becomes more widely available (eventually to the group or even the individual level) it has reached a natural threshold. Either it will destroy itself, or it will have developed into a moral species that is able to largely control its own instinctive behaviors and restrict its violent impulses (down to the group or even individual level perhpas).

Such a moral species is now free to continue to learn and develop technologically, until it becomes a star-faring species (if it so chooses). Sort of Nature's Way of preventing a violent species from spreading beyond its own world (of course, there may be an exception or two somewhere in the Universe).

To me, this completely makes sense given the caveat about violence and evolution. Kinda wonder if our species is at or near that threshold -- and if we will survive and perhaps evolve into a moral species (like the vision presented by Star Trek minus the Klingons or something like that). So far...

I also kinda wonder about the exceptions...

[cesarnc]

Nature preventing a violent species to spread out...

That's something I must think about...

Sometimes I wonder if what really matters for Nature is the conservation of DNA. Any DNA. Be it from an intelligent species or not.

It's like if life was just a way to properly protect and perpetuate DNA. Whatever the form. The stronger, the better.

I always think about that when a freaking virus spreads out and starts the carnage. Ok, Nature made us capable of produce vaccins, I give you that.

But what if a virus someday mutates in such a way to devastate mankind in, say 15 days? 30 days? Would Nature step in? Is there something about Nature that forbids such an event to happen?

I don't think so.

A huge number of species was already extinct around here. Why would an intelligent species be more special?

[Moon]

There's another interesting thought I read a few time ago.

It was said that it would be nearly impossible for us to meet another intelligent civilization in the Universe, because, if they are made of hostile states (like ours) and they are intelligent, they will discover uranium eventually and will exterminate themselves quickly after.

I have heard that one too, and I think Carl Sagan also said something like that. The problem is the scientists keep on putting our (the Earth's) thoughts and history to what might happen at other civilizations. It is quite possible we might be the only violent ones out here. Highly unlikely, but possible.

I just do not think we should think of any civilization or species as all taking the same path that our planet and its peoples have.

[Pons Asinorum]

Is there something about Nature that forbids such an event to happen?

Maybe; consider if a virus was so lethal as to utterly destroy its host species, then the virus would die out too -- end of the line from an evolutionary perspective. Better for a virus to not kill so quickly that the host species is unable to reproduce. From the virus' point of view that would be a better design -- and from an evolutionary perspective, that strain of virus would be more likely to survive, propagate, and mutate (and if selected, evolve...).

Of course, if given a "helping hand" by us, then all bets are off...

A huge number of species was already extinct around here. Why would an intelligent species be more special?

I agree; it may even be worse for an intelligent species because of the ability to construct better and more effective means of destruction (such as the aforementioned virus) -- along with all the other possibilities. I mean from the advent of civilization to the point of developing genuine weapons of mass destruction is what -- between 7 and 5 thousand years? A blink in the eye.

It is hard to say if we will destroy ourselves or if something in nature does us in (of course we might make it too...maybe...). Hard to say because, as Maxmercury alluded to, we only have a sample size of One on which to base our guesstimates.

[cesarnc]

Maybe; consider if a virus was so lethal as to utterly destroy its host species, then the virus would die out too -- end of the line from an evolutionary perspective. Better for a virus to not kill so quickly that the host species is unable to reproduce. From the virus' point of view that would be a better design -- and from an evolutionary perspective, that strain of virus would be more likely to survive, propagate, and mutate (and if selected, evolve...).

There's no problem in a virus to kill an entire species (and therefore kill its lineage). Nature took care of it by making them species-specifics.

And also, Nature took care of it by making a huge number of species. So, even if 1,000 species die, life still goes on...

That's what I said previously, it looks like preservation of DNA, as an entity, is the key for nature. It doesn't matter whose DNAs.

And what if a big asteroid hits Earth and messes up with our planet?

Nature took care of it by making the hard@$$es cockroaches. Last time it happened, cockroaches were dusting themselves off while the big ol' powerful T.Rex was starving to death.

For nature it wouldn't matter if there are Alicia Silverstones or a pack of cockroaches around, as long as there are DNAs circulating. (some usually includes Keith Richards as a possible survivor).

Have you seen that show "Life After People" from History?

Man, in about 20,000 years (if I can recall properly) there would be no evidence of presence of mankind on Earth. Life would just give us the finger and go on