Bear Reports Sighting in Goldilocks Zone

[Ursa major]

Astronomers have spotted another candidate for a potentially habitable planet - and it is not too far away.

The star HD 40307 was known to host three planets, all of them too near to support liquid water.

But research to appear in Astronomy and Astrophysics has found three more - among them a "super-Earth" seven times our planet's mass, in the habitable zone where liquid water can exist.

Many more observations will be needed to confirm any other similarities.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20249753.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Interesting concept. But I still feel the whole issue is not whether or not a planet that supports liquid water, but the potential branches of evolution. I suspect that what scientists are trying to look for more are colonizing planets rather than other intelligent life...

 

[Bowler1]

I was expecting something else when I saw the title.

I get excited when I see these reports. I know there all a best guess at most of what the planet might be like, but even still. If they ever find a planet with proven life on, then that really will be exciting. Until then it's guess work and our imaginations. Still, it's all good ideas for WIP's, which is why I read a lot of these stories when they appear on the news.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Karn, at seven times our Earth's mass, that is not a viable option for colonization by us. We'd be squished flat by the intense gravity.

 

[chrispenycate]

Karn, at seven times our Earth's mass, that is not a viable option for colonization by us. We'd be squished flat by the intense gravity.

Seven times the mass does not necessarily mean seven times the surface gravity; there are other factors to be taken into account. Saturn, at a hundred times the Earth's mass only has a slightly higher surface gravity (as far as one can talk about 'surface' with a gas giant). And a big planet in the right region could have a habitable moon.

But any true scientist would be more interested in extraterrestrial life, existence, care and feeding of, than any possible colonisation which, with present-day physics, is several centuries down the line, anyway.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Ah but Saturn IS a gas planet, not a rock one. No way we could withstand the gravity of a rock planet that big. But the idea about possible habitable moons, that I have to agree with is a fascinating concept.

And if we are not discussing human habitation, then there are all kinds of potential life possible on the planet itself. Any life that developed there would develop strategies to deal with the higher gravity.

 

[Metryq]

Ah but Saturn IS a gas planet, not a rock one.

I think you're missing Crispenycate's point. Astronomers believe they know the masses of these planets. That does not mean they know the volumes. The HARP data is extremely tenuous. Minor flickerings in spectral shift—assumed to be due to the Doppler effect—appear to be a handful of large masses around a given star. After that, everything is pure speculation.

 

[Dave]

There are a tremendous number of assumptions being made here, but since we only have the experience of a single planetary system to examine, I can't see what other basis there could be. As always, the problem is not the speculation of the scientists, but of reporters who do not understand the assumptions made but are then running the conclusions as a forgone absolute fact.

 

[Gordian Knot]

I think you're missing Crispenycate's point. Astronomers believe they know the masses of these planets. That does not mean they know the volumes. The HARP data is extremely tenuous. Minor flickerings in spectral shift—assumed to be due to the Doppler effect—appear to be a handful of large masses around a given star. After that, everything is pure speculation.

I quite agree with all of this. We are making projections based on very tenuous information. Only time will tell if we are seeing what we think we may be seeing.

What is not tenuous though is physics. If the newly discovered object is a rock planet seven times the size of the earth, the gravity is going to be enormously higher. I don't see how that can be debated. We do have a fair understanding of size, mass and gravity.

 

[Metryq]

What is not tenuous though is physics.

Meanwhile there are lots of scientists who can still talk about neutron stars, black holes and icy comets with a straight face.

If the newly discovered object is a rock planet

IF. All the data shows is that a mass about seven times that of Earth appears to be in orbit.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Karn, at seven times our Earth's mass, that is not a viable option for colonization by us. We'd be squished flat by the intense gravity.

Given the scenario, yes. You did miss my point here, however. What my point was, was that scientists always seem to be so busy trying to find planets and other celestial bodies with liquid water that they exclude their field of vision to anything else. Just because OUR planet gave life due to liquid water doesn't mean there might not be other life forms out there which have evolved in a totally different matter. What if there's an intelligent species out there to whom H2O would be as deadly a toxin as arsenic is to us? I just mean that astronomers and physicists should consider those types of possibilities.

 

[Metryq]

Class M planets

What if there's an intelligent species out there to whom H2O would be as deadly a toxin as arsenic is to us?

Quite possible. However, from a practical standpoint, most life may not be detectable from a distance. So "exobiology" becomes a field of study with no subject until we can get out there and get our hands dirty.

Hydrogen and water appear to be very common in the universe. Astronomers have detected stars that seem to be spewing jets of water into space. So while there may be life based on radically different chemistries, it's possible that we'll run into many biospheres with life "similar" to ours.

I'll show my parochial bias by opining that water is unlikely to be poisonous to other life, while a component of water (not bound up) such as oxygen might be very poisonous. One example is a silicon-based life form; search the Web for treatments on the TREK episode "Devil in the Dark." Face-to-face contact, as depicted in that episode, may not be possible—even for short periods.

 

[nubins]

Depends what that mass is, even if it is rocky - do i understand correctly that if it didnt have a molten iron core, its extremely unlikely to be able to support any form of life as we know it?

 

[Ursa major]

Re: Class M planets

Astronomers have detected stars that seem to be spewing jets of water into space.

Steam-powered stars?

Now that's what I call superheating....

​

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Re: Class M planets

Quite possible. However, from a practical standpoint, most life may not be detectable from a distance. So "exobiology" becomes a field of study with no subject until we can get out there and get our hands dirty.

Hydrogen and water appear to be very common in the universe. Astronomers have detected stars that seem to be spewing jets of water into space. So while there may be life based on radically different chemistries, it's possible that we'll run into many biospheres with life "similar" to ours.

I'll show my parochial bias by opining that water is unlikely to be poisonous to other life, while a component of water (not bound up) such as oxygen might be very poisonous. One example is a silicon-based life form; search the Web for treatments on the TREK episode "Devil in the Dark." Face-to-face contact, as depicted in that episode, may not be possible—even for short periods.

Well yes. It was just an example, but what my point was, is that I feel scientists are getting a little too excited over planets with atmospheres similar to ours. While there is a good possibility that they could most likely indeed support life, I'm just saying we shouldn't rule out the possibility that it is the ONLY scenario that could support intelligent life.

 

[Metryq]

Let us not forget Percival Lowell's Martians

Nubins wrote: do i understand correctly that if it didnt have a molten iron core, its extremely unlikely to be able to support any form of life as we know it?

Venus does not have a magnetosphere, but it does have a plasmasphere. So while I'm not claiming that Venus has life, it is shielded from the Solar wind by what I believe is called a Langmuir sheath, or Debye sheath. I have no idea how long such a condition might last. For example, the Moon has no plasmasphere as that body has reached equilibrium with the Solar plasma.

I'm just saying we shouldn't rule out the possibility that it is the ONLY scenario that could support intelligent life.

I think the problem is exactly the opposite—some astronomers are seeing potential abodes of life based on nothing more than the mass of a planet and its proximity to the local star. Most exoplanets are spotted with various methods of recording a star's "wobble" about the system's barycenter. A few exoplanets have been photographed directly, but they are all Jupiter+ masses and/or orbiting far outside the assumed "Goldilocks zone." And while there have been fanciful speculations on creatures living in the clouds of Jupiter, they are still just speculations and tell us nothing about far larger planets many lightyears away.

Let us not forget Percival Lowell's Martians (canals and shifting patterns of assumed vegetation).

 

[Gordian Knot]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karn Maeshalanadae
I'm just saying we shouldn't rule out the possibility that it is the ONLY scenario that could support intelligent life.

A topic I follow with some interest as the philosophy seems to have changed from a couple decades ago. Back in the '70s era it was generally accepted that life on other planets would be nothing like life on Earth. Different biosphere environments, and radically different life shapes. No central mass with a head and four limbs allowed.

Nowadays a lot of scientists seem to be suggesting quite the opposite. That there is likely plenty of life on planets with liquid water, and that life forms would develop similar to our own. The reasoning seems to be that the solutions to dealing with a physical shape would be similar to what we experienced here, and thus could develop along similar lines as here.

It seems very curious to me that general thinking has changed to the "more like us" rather than "less like us" over the past few decades. The reasoning behind the water requirement having gained ground is logical as we have found so much more of it than anyone would have ever expected.

But the lifeforms themselves? I'm having a harder time accepting that one. I still lean towards life shapes being very different from how life shapes evolved on Earth.

Quote Originally Posted by Metryq
Meanwhile there are lots of scientists who can still talk about neutron stars, black holes and icy comets with a straight face.

Met, I am reading this as sarcasm. Which is cool, I've been known to fling a bit of sarcasm around in my time. I'm confused about what you are saying though. Are you suggesting that neutron stars, black holes and icy comets should not be considered as essentially fact? Cause I kinda thought they were.

 

[Abernovo]

Gord, I don't think the talk about life 'like us' means looking exactly like us. If you have a water-rich planet, with something like nucleic acids as a basis for life, the basic hypothesis is that you need cell-like structures. Without something akin to cell walls, you lack a containment and stuff can disperse. Once you have cells, or something like them, then there are patterns that are likely to occur.

Then you have the intelligence factor. Do you sacrifice your arms or your head in a fall? So, is it likely that evolution will probably favour some protection for brains, or their equivalents? The truth is often odder than we can imagine, but there will likely be patterns that we can identify.

As to neutron stars and black holes, neither have ever been visually observed. They are, as I understand, mathematical models, that best explain the results gathered. Unless someone comes up with something better, I'm fine with them, personally. I'm sure the models will be refined over time.

Metryq's comment perhaps comes about because of 'icy' comets. For years, comets were described as clusters of rock and ice, although nobody had ever collected samples or been able to study them closely. A few years ago, they were able to and found that the particular comet they collided the spacecraft with was much rockier than expected. So if comets aren't necessarily icy, then do other models need tweaking? That question is close to the heart of all good research.

Metryq, forgive me if I misrepresent you. It wasn't my intention, only my interpretation of a current debate going on about the exact properties of some astronomic phenomena.

 

[Dave]

You don't need to look to alien life to find life that doesn't look much like a mammal. Just examine closely a spider, or a crab or locust. Those things are seriously weird and not cuddly at all. So, any life we find will undoubtedly be weirder than we can possibly imagine.

I think we are talking about different things here though. Firstly, instances of parallel evolution may well lead to intelligent beings all having heads, two legs and arms, binocular vision and opposable thumbs, but that is quite different to the Chemistry.

I think it was the view that Water was rare that resulted in the idea that we might find "life, but not as we know it!" Now, they think Water is not that rare, but an actual "Waterworld" like Earth may still be very rare indeed.

There is no other solvent that acts like Water, it is unique and extremely odd in its properties. There is no other element that creates long chain molecules like Carbon. Silicon does not, it creates clay minerals and rocks. There are more Carbon compounds than any other element, many times more. It is also unique. So, I'm not sure that the ideas of Ammonia/Silicon based life are anything but wishful thinking.

I like reading SF that postulates cold temperature life, rock monsters and atmospheric gas balloons, but realistically the best chances of finding life will be Water/Carbon and DNA. I could see the DNA having alternative base pairs from the existing four though. That would be interesting.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Re: Let us not forget Percival Lowell's Martians

Venus does not have a magnetosphere, but it does have a plasmasphere. So while I'm not claiming that Venus has life, it is shielded from the Solar wind by what I believe is called a Langmuir sheath, or Debye sheath. I have no idea how long such a condition might last. For example, the Moon has no plasmasphere as that body has reached equilibrium with the Solar plasma.



I think the problem is exactly the opposite—some astronomers are seeing potential abodes of life based on nothing more than the mass of a planet and its proximity to the local star. Most exoplanets are spotted with various methods of recording a star's "wobble" about the system's barycenter. A few exoplanets have been photographed directly, but they are all Jupiter+ masses and/or orbiting far outside the assumed "Goldilocks zone." And while there have been fanciful speculations on creatures living in the clouds of Jupiter, they are still just speculations and tell us nothing about far larger planets many lightyears away.

Let us not forget Percival Lowell's Martians (canals and shifting patterns of assumed vegetation).

That's another issue-what scientists dub "the Goldilocks zone." Again, it's making too much an assumption. Even putting everything Dave just said aside, I still find it possible that there could well be lifeforms that would actually die of hypothermia even along our equator. I would probably hazard a guess that it would be a bit of a stretch for anything to die of heat stroke in Antarctica, though.