Announcement of discovery of 54 possible habitable planets

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

BBC announcement

Astronomers have identified some 54 new planets where conditions may be suitable for life.
Five of the candidates are Earth-sized.
HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12354390

And a Star with 6 planets in orbit! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12333766

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Yes this is really cool, had a look at the keplar data on Planethunters.org and I got a mention for one star It is such a cool site.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

re deleted posts.

Astronomy and Amateur Science Forum is for serious discussion about topics of scientific interest. Please keep spam posts out of the thread.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

Yes this is really cool, had a look at the keplar data on Planethunters.org and I got a mention for one star It is such a cool site.

Hey, that's cool Malcolm.

One thing I think about with the Kepler method of finding exoplanets is that there are probably an awful lot of planets not being seen because their orbit is only a few degrees off the plane of observation.

Kepler will only see the planets that cross the disk of a star.
If their orbit plane is tilted a fair bit the 'star wobble' would be noticed (also a method for detecting exoplanets). But I wonder how many are missed when the plane is between the two, where the planets cross just a tad below or above the stars disk.
Maybe the stars' wobble still gives them away.

[CraigS]

Re: Uncertainties effecting the planet temperature estimates, (equilibrium temperatures), and thereby, how many may, or may not be, within the habitable zone:

The uncertainty in the computed equilibrium temperatures is approximately 22% (see Appendix) because of uncertainties in the stellar size, mass, and temperature as well as the planetary albedo. The effect of any atmosphere is an additional uncertainty.
…
Appendix:
The following calculations assume that the planet radiates as a grey body; i.e., it does not have an atmosphere. The uncertainties associated with the effect of an atmosphere could dwarf the uncertainties discussed here.
…
The habitable zone (HZ) is often defined to be that region around a star where a rocky planet with an Earth-like atmosphere could have a surface temperature between the freezing point and boiling point of water, or analogously the region receiving roughly the same insolation as the Earth from the Sun ...

Cheers

[leon]

Well that's good Ken, at least we will have somewhere else to go when this one drowns.

Leon

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Throughout my observations on the data, I had marked so many possible transits. I am sure this would have been taken into account when determining possible transits. I looked at my data that is a candidate and it is very obvious transit in my opinion. Some of the other transits I have marked are very hard to determin and maybe in the next batch. At the moment the new set of data has some issues (Big gaps) that I believe will be explained (possible Keplar down time) or dealt with so making checking a bit on the hard side.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Re: Uncertainties effecting the planet temperature estimates, (equilibrium temperatures), and thereby, how many may, or may not be, within the habitable zone:
Cheers

and your point is?
I have no idea what you copy/pasted post has to do with the thread topic.

Originally Posted by leon

Well that's good Ken, at least we will have somewhere else to go when this one drowns.

Leon

Thanks Leon.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

and your point is?
I have no idea what you copy/pasted post has to do with the thread topic.

The quote came from the original paper authored by the researchers ..

Characteristics of planetary candidates observed by Kepler, II: Analysis of the first four months of data
Also submitted 2 Feb, 2011 on arXiv.

The uncertainties behind the measurements are of first order importance in considering the conclusions.

Cheers

[leon]

Just having a stir Ken, no need for the rolley eyes mate

Leon

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The quote came from the original paper authored by the researchers ..

Characteristics of planetary candidates observed by Kepler, II: Analysis of the first four months of data
Also submitted 2 Feb, 2011 on arXiv.

The uncertainties behind the measurements are of first order importance in considering the conclusions.

Cheers

I actually find it interesting that the article title contains the words
'Potentially Habitable Worlds'.
Rather an optimistic statement.

I can't say I agree with the title. I'm just posting the announcement.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by leon

Well that's good Ken, at least we will have somewhere else to go when this one drowns.

Leon

The only problem with that Leon, is that if it is a habitable planet, then it would likely contain other life that might not want us taking up residence...... depending on where we sit in the food chain .

I like lunch, except when I am it.

[OneOfOne (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

...One thing I think about with the Kepler method of finding exoplanets is that there are probably an awful lot of planets not being seen because their orbit is only a few degrees off the plane of observation.
...

It is interesting that such a small percentage of planets will be detected by this method. As there is no reason to think that the planets found are anything special you could extrapolate the percentages to get a realistic idea of just how many have planets. If, by random luck, just 1% of planetary systems would be in the right orientation to transit, you could expect the "real" figure to be 100 times larger. It is just mind blowing, isn't it!

[CraigS]

Not wishing to divert speculative conversations about the possible numbers of planets external to the Kepler dataset, at the heart of the research is clearly, the hunt for habitable environments and ultimately, the search for exo-life.

I notice that Mr SETI himself, Seth Shostak says the following (after reviewing the Kepler dataset results):

But here's the promise. If we crudely do the numbers, these early results from Kepler indicate that approximately 3 percent of all stars could boast a habitable planet.
Within a thousand light-years of Earth -- a distance that could be bridged by transmitters no more powerful than equipment we ourselves can build – there are at least 30,000 of these habitable worlds.

Looking at these words in the light of the facts from the review team paper, (posted previously), about the uncertainties in the planetary temperature figures being upwards of at least, 22% based on Stellar size, mass, temperature and planetary albedo .. with the presence/absence of an atmosphere being capable of dwarfing this figure, one is brought back to reality, fairly quickly.

My point here is that comments such as Shostak’s tend to ‘stick’ in the minds of the public (for a very long time).

As likely as he makes it out to be, there is still no scientific basis for his optimistic views.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

There's also no scientific evidence to be overly (or even cautiously) pessimistic.

You have to remember that these planet's surface tempts etc, were based on grey-body calculations and are most likely not a true reflection of the actually env' conditions of the planet's themselves.

The only way we're going to be able to know for sure is to physically image these planets and take spectroscopic readings of their atmospheres. That, or actually go there and see for ourselves.

If the comments stick in the minds of the public all well and good. There's more to the politics of science than making headlines. This is just the sort of thing which encourages people to fund the scientific efforts more so than they actually are being done at present. Give people the chance to see what is out there and all the possibilities, and the funding will come eventually.

I would also disagree with Seth's (crude) analysis of 3% of all sun like stars having habitable planets. This result was only from 4 months work, on a patch of sky that only cover 1/400th of the total area of the observable sky and only to a depth of 3000 light years. That's still too statistically small to be of any significance. Might be a different matter once GAIA is launched, but for now it's only promising. What can be said from this is that if the numbers stack up, there are a mind bogglingly large number of planets in our galaxy. Even if only 1 in 100 (or 1 in 1000, 1 in 10^6) of them were habitable, it would still be a huge number of habitable planets present in our galaxy. More than you could count in a lifetime.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

What can be said from this is that if the numbers stack up, there are a mind bogglingly large number of planets in our galaxy. Even if only 1 in 100 (or 1 in 1000, 1 in 10^6) of them were habitable, it would still be a huge number of habitable planets present in our galaxy. More than you could count in a lifetime.

And that is only in our own Galaxy.
Now, how many Galaxies are out there?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

What can be said from this is that if the numbers stack up, there are a mind bogglingly large number of planets in our galaxy. Even if only 1 in 100 (or 1 in 1000, 1 in 10^6) of them were habitable, it would still be a huge number of habitable planets present in our galaxy. More than you could count in a lifetime.

Well … the Kepler discoveries are still exoplanet 'candidates'. When a 'reasonable' number have become 'validated' or 'confirmed', I'd say it has then become legitimate to use the definitive term, 'are'. (Admittedly, I don't know what that number might be, mind you).

The guys who wrote the report, have been diligent in their use of the term 'candidate' exoplanet, presumably, for this reason. (Not so in the media reports etc).

The rest of what you say, could've just as easily been said before the Kepler discovery and is still speculation.



Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Drake equation springs to mind. Although is said to be more specific to advanced life.

For SETI, I think the number of worlds they anticipated is much higher than they even forecast, but at least they have something to point to specifically.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

Drake equation springs to mind. Although is said to be more specific to advanced life.

For SETI, I think the number of worlds they anticipated is much higher than they even forecast, but at least they have something to point to specifically.

The parameters of the Drake equation are speculative and frequently disputed, (for the same reasons .. no data).

All they can point to is the equation itself .. which really doesn't mean anything without measured parameters.

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Just pointing out the equation, I don't really accept an equation like this unless we receive some evidence relating to such an equation (as you suggest).

I think is more ambitious than realistic but sometimes it is stuff like this that gives up the drive to search. The Kepler program is just another small realistic search step in the final search for real habitable planets or intelligent life. Drakes equation may have been set as a goal.

One thing I would like to see or even make is a narrow field Magnetic field detector. I think this would be a major step in finding habitable planets out of those candidates. The current instrument theory (muon Detectors or some other detector) is a while away unless I have missed something.