Orange Alert: Potentially Habitable Planet Found
from the M-class dept
Just as the rumors of a UN-appointed alien ambassador are settling down, astrophysicists have reported the discovery of the first potentially life-sustaining planet outside of our solar system. This conclusion is based on 11 years of observations and some estimates that place this newly-found exoplanet in a region that would allow for the existence of liquid water and an atmosphere on Gliese 581g. However, that doesn't necessarily mean water or an atmosphere actually exist there.The more important news here is that this type of planet can be found in a relatively straightforward manner -- which will likely lead to many, many more discoveries of similar planets in the universe. However, instead of focusing on that, reporters and one of the scientists involved are hyping up the possibility of life. Steven Vogt, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at University of California Santa Cruz, optimistically states:
"Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say that the chances for life on this planet are 100 percent. I have almost no doubt about it"It seems a bit unscientific to project a 100% chance, especially given that our own solar system has more than one planet that could be classified as potentially habitable -- and we've yet to confirm that life exists (or existed) on any other planet (or moon) that orbits our sun. And before we start charting a course towards Gliese 581 to meet up with new life forms, perhaps we should wait until a few more exoplanets are detected with similar characteristics.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: habitable planets, planets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Traveling in space has brought us a lot of advancements in science. Hype it up, get people interested again and not just because another ship explodes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought the same thing
The question wouldn't be to defend that there is life at Gliese 581g, says Butler. "The question," he said, "would be to demonstrate that there isn't."
Really? These guys are scientists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Proving a theory wrong can kill the theory sure. But do we have a theory about life in the universe? We've got a single observable instance of life arising on a planet. Based on that there's no way we can make a valid theory that says any temperate earth-like planet has life on it. There's not enough observable evidence to warrant the theory!
Stating that another planet is sure to have life on it is an extraordinary claim that requires like evidence. If you're going to claim that there's a 100% chance for life on Gliese 561g, you've most certainly got to defend that with more than "where there's water on earth, there's life".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Yeah just wait till your religion clashes with theirs ... "what do you mean they are buddhists?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought the same thing
Lack of positive evidence that something does not exist is clearly proof that it does!
That sounds a bit like...religion.
Perhaps science class has changed since I was in school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Science WELCOMES and ENCOURAGES criticism and questioning.
Religion shuns it, and will try to make you look like the devil if you if you don't believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
If you consider that until well into the 1970s it was widely accepted in scientific circles that dinosaurs were all cold blooded, stupid, bad parents by mammalian standards and all died out.
Those who observed the subtle and not so subtle similarities between birds and dinosaurs were, to put it kindly, considered quacks.
The "quacks" held their ground and through such things as the discoveries that dinosaurs actually did develop feathers, weren't at all similar to reptiles as parents, were considerably brighter than we thought, were warm blooded and a few other details that were considered laughable not so long ago.
And now we know that birds really are dinosaurs that survived the extinction by the simple fact that they could get up and move the distances required to find food and suitable nesting places during the extinction period.
In that sense scientists are remarkably like those you criticize in religion who hold onto simplistic notions about their faith and reject any and all interpretations that are at odds with their notions.
If the Judeo-Christian tradition rejected criticism and questioning then where,pray tell, did such honoured practices such as midrash and exegesis come from?
In short, we're all human, we all have our blind spots and ideas we're joined at the hip to and take something on the order of an earthquake to shake.
Science is no different than any other human endeavor in that respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Ha! I call bullshit on this. There are PLENTY of critics and questions about evolution sufficient to dispute its absolute validity, and yet if you so much as SNIFF at the theory wrong, everyone jumps on you for being a "closed minded Religious nutbag." Period. It is so widely touted as FACT (and yes, its touted AS FACT by scientists and educators, and the poster boy for evolution, Richard Dawkins) that to question it in even the smallest way is tantamount to scientific heresy. It is so sacrosanct as a model, that its virtually impossible to debate the merits against it without being immediately shut down and dismissed as a wacko for even suggesting that evolution might, in fact, not be right. I have many problems with evolution as an explanation for how life exists on this planet, but you cant raise any objections because science DOESNT WANT TO HEAR DISSENT ON THE TOPIC OF EVOLUTION. At all. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Because Chuck Norris did it first....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Probably because your "DISSENT" isn't on a level that scientists would like to listen. Screaming something doesn't make it so. Can you point to a sane, rational discussion where said dissent is brought up and scientists have ignored, (and hasn't been refuted hundreds of times before?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I thought the same thing
Science is an inanimate process and can neither welcome nor encourage anything.
People may encourage honest inquiry, or they may not. The track record of scientists in this regard is quite mixed, which is to be expected since scientists are just people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought the same thing
Then the need would be to disprove that life existed on that planet, and why it didn't so that they could rule out the many other potential planets and not waste resources on trying to find life on those planets that have the same issues.
Either way they have to find some way to either rule in or out that planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another problem.
Think about this, you can actually grow resources there and have a planet that's ready to colonize quite quickly. The problem arises when budget is determined for so many pet projects. IIRC, there's a league of engineers that say we can colonize Mars for ~$420 million. Please don't quote me on that number for it's a rough guesstimate from a lecture.
So my question is why are we trying to see planets so far out when we can work on the planets within our solar system first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another problem.
Uh, because we no conclusively that there are no space-babes on Mars. Don't you read Popular Science?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another problem.
Getting there will truly be a victory for Science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another problem.
There are a million problems that make interstellar travel unfathomably difficult. Reaching escape velocity is the easiest part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another problem.
There are a million problems that make interstellar travel unfathomably difficult. Reaching escape velocity is the easiest part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
I happen to believe that life outside our solar system will eventually be found as well, but it's like this guy has never even HEARD of the Drake Equation....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
1 cake + 1 coffee = yummy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
The finding of this type of planet and subsequent speculation about life on said planet eliminate the first three factors. His limitation of asserting only that there be life, not intelligent, civilized life eliminate the last three factors, leaving only f(l).
On this point Vogt is simply excersizing his own religious faith in the Jurassic Park perversion of Chaos Theory and asserting that life MUST happen where it might.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh, what?
Life was essentially confirmed as "very likely to exist" on mars recently. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2951855/Nasa-Evidence-of-life-on-mars.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: uh, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: uh, what?
The guy who wrote the post (not me, btw) *is* a scientist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: uh, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And they should spend a few billion dollars trying to send a message in a bottle to this planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/poker/lottery_simulator100.php
No matter how many times I lose, there's still a chance that I will win.
It's just not bloody likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad to see this stance on issues
I mean heck, the planet they're talking about is in tidal lock for gods sakes, and they talk about life? It's obviously meaningless hype . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Glad to see this stance on issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Glad to see this stance on issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Glad to see this stance on issues
If it isn't carbon-based, how would we recognize it?
We do actually try a variety of methods to detect life that doesn't have anything to do with it being carbon based, but we really only know how to detect carbon lifeforms.
So, we work on finding carbon lifeforms because those are what we know how to detect.
(Similarly, we only think about thoughts we can think because we can ONLY think about thoughts we can think. Our lack of experience with other examples leave us unable to expand our horizons)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad to see this stance on issues
And to your question: no clue, I don't follow these things well enough to offer anything more than extra questions. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Glad to see this stance on issues
There is nowhere on earth today that is anywhere near complex enough for abiogenesis. Outside of a laboratory. That we know of.
This planet, being in tidal lock, will probably have a very stable and comparatively simple environment.
You have further restrictions that there is only a very, very small ring around the planet, (Near the border between dark and light sides), where any life that requires water or a water-like substance might possibly have arisen from, IF it has a sufficient atmosphere such that the water doesn't all freeze on the dark side.
And then, well, you're still dealing with some heavy apocalypse winds, especially in that particular potentially habitable ring.
And there are tons of other restrictions that Vogt and the reporters fail to mention.
And even then, you're confusing a couple of issues.
Abiogenesis is completely different from underestimating life's ability to adapt to strange environments. If life doesn't start there in the first place, you won't find life there. If life has already started there, however, I wouldn't be surprised if we find it everywhere on the planet.
(Note: To be fair, it's only predicted to be in tidal lock)
The REALLY big news is that we now have a quick, efficient method to find a LOT of planets like these, among which we might find much better planets to call 'habitable' and '100% chance of life'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good first step may be creating space hotels to drive demand, and the Russians are planning to get there first.
http://www.physorg.com/news204984424.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who cares?
No one (of repute) is talking about traveling to 581g to meet our fellow life forms. Space travel beyond our solar system is infeasible according to current physics, it's out of the question. Looking at other planets may allow us to answer some of the most fundamental questions on our existence; in this case how did life arise and how common is it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
READ YOU IDIOTS
the planet over time due to how close it is will slow rotation if it ever did.....
and because of the measurements they took they determined its long since been tidally locked
that means venus like conditions potentially ( god i hate this keyboard)
at best in the region where the two night /days meet is slim chance of water existing but if you think of the fact tidal lock means no CO2 recycling as well....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: READ YOU IDIOTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before you Comment on Science learn some
I can tell the author is not versed in astrophysics....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before you Comment on Science learn some
Meanwhile, we have some really promising looking worlds here, which so far have shown no sign of life. And we have a lot more data filled in about them; we don't even know if 581 g has an atmosphere, for example, while we have a pretty good idea about the atmospheres of the planets and moons in our solar system.
BTW, Europa is a moon. Moon =/= planet. Habitable zone is a term intended for planets.
In particular, the habitable zone is the area at which, IF all other conditions are right, a planet MIGHT retain liquid water on the surface.
So, outside of the HZ, a habitable earthlike PLANET does not exist, (though a moon might), but that's only one of a heckuvalot of hurdles.
There are still may cases, by far the majority of them, by enumeration or by statistical weight, whereas a planet in the HZ does not retain water. It might not even have water, it might not even have an atmosphere if conditions are wrong.
And then the existence of water doesn't guarantee life. It's just one in a long list of hurdles . . .
You're taking some major anthropic bias when you declare that the one planet we know in the middle of the HZ has life, btw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Before you Comment on Science learn some
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agreed
Then again, it would take us hundreds if not thousands of years to get to this other one.
No scientist should be claiming 100%, he is a fool... Or is he? The hype might actually build more funing, research is good, no matter what its on.
The fact is, from way back here on Earth, no one will ever be able to disprove that there is life there.
But, we should be proving, not disproving, since anyone whos ever heard of SETI and the Drake equation knows that the odds of life existing are what they are because there are a hundred bazillion planets out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It can be incredibly annoying when articles are talking about some minor observation and then veer wildly into grandiose claims about how it proves this or that about extraterrestrial life or evolution or whatever, and the finding just has nothing to do with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm 100% Sure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all well and good, but......
And your point is???
Folks, we have trouble sending drones to Mars! I forget the exact failure rate, but, most of what we send to Mars catos when it gets there. Maybe there's life there is life on this distant planet and maybe there isn't. One thing is for sure. None of us are going there. With current technology a manned mission to, say, Jupiter, is wildly unlikely to have any survivors. The idea of going to another SOLAR SYSTEM (caps for emphasis) is absolutely preposterous.
And as much as I find the idea of having a colony on Mars to be intriguing...has anyone noticed the economy lately? Has anyone looked at the US budget deficit? The US national debt?
It is amazing to me that the country is up to it's eyeballs in debt, and that your children and grandchildren are going to be taxed into poverty to keep the INTEREST on the debt paid, and people here are talking about increasing NASA's budget?
Maybe, just maybe, we should think about reigning in our budget excesses and getting the country solvent again before we go traipsing off to other planets, hm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Wonder If They’ve ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gliese 581 just 20 light-years away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah gonna happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah gonna happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah gonna happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah gonna happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]