Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

BREAKING: New potentially habitable exoplanet found around Teegarden's star

  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#26 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5983
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 08:00 AM

Additionally important is that Teegarden's Star appears to be a stable red dwarf without large solar flares or other violent activity that would threaten the planets in the goldilocks zone.  Next steps would be to determine if these planets had atmospheres and are geologically stable.  Nice when we find candidates like this in the local neighborhood.

 

https://www.aanda.or.../aa35460-19.pdf

Also tidal locking. That could put a damper on any party very quickly.



#27 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5983
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 08:02 AM

Einstein’s insights did not replace Newton’s.  They refined them.

 

While anything is possible, it currently seems unlikely that interstellar travel something we will achieve in the next 100 years.

As Newton said “He was standing on the shoulders of giants”



#28 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5983
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 08:04 AM

waytogo.gif

 

Einstein's (and others) insights made interstellar travel much more difficult but even under Newonian physics it's essentially impossible. 

 

Jon

But they can also help define possible ways to mitigate issues. Such as Alcubierre Drive.

 

https://en.m.wikiped...lcubierre_drive

 

Cheers

Phil



#29 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 10:24 AM

We make yet another extremely optimistic assumption: That we (and "they") will (or have) continue to progress exponentially in every way and by every metric:

 

>in population

>in intelligence, IQ

>in efficient use of resources

>in cumulative ~knowledge~

>in availing new laws of Nature

>in speedy travel

>in strength, endurance, bodily efficiency

>in ability to shape our environment

> blah

> blah

> ...

 

But every chain letter, unlimited resources, progression... eventually plateaus, then descends. We've only experienced a flash-in-the-pan recent progression in technologicals... becoming exponential since the recent ~Industrial Revolution~ That becomes mesmerizing, compelling and arrogantly-optimistic. As they say at every Commencement Ceremony... "You are our future; you can do anything you set your mind to --- now, Go out there and ~Knock 'em DEAD!~"

 

And... alas... that's what modern graduates seem focused on doing... literally... knocking 'em dead... where 'em is the other guy.

 

And that's why we look out, away from Earth... and see an entirely undeveloped Universe! ... which is its Natural State. The Universe is not welcoming and nurturing us; it is rejecting us!  (and all other rising sentients)    ~QED~

 

Your turn.    Tom

Attached Thumbnails

  • 89 war of the worlds space aliens goldilocks.jpg

  • Matt78 likes this

#30 InkDark

InkDark

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2536
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Province of Quebec, Canada

Posted 21 June 2019 - 10:28 AM

Habitable zone is an outdated concept.  Our star system has one planet with a habitable surface, but at least three, possibly many more, habitable ocean worlds with ice on the surface and internal energy sources.

 

 

I know about possible océans on Europa and Enceladus, but which is the third body?



#31 InkDark

InkDark

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2536
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Province of Quebec, Canada

Posted 21 June 2019 - 10:39 AM

 

 

Life, even complex life, is far more likely to arise in these far more common worlds.  They can occur anywhere where icy bodies orbit a larger mass.  Any star will do.  Maybe even rogue planets and stellar remnants have them.

Maybe. OTOH, complex life is a hard thing to get....it seems. The rise of the eucaryote cell is possibly a freak accident on Earth. Procaryotes have spend possibly billions of years on their own on the planet before a (again possibly) one time event leading to complex cells.

 

The time frame in which we live maybe far too short to find complex life. Then again, maybe not.


  • Dave Mitsky likes this

#32 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79015
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 June 2019 - 10:50 AM

As Newton said “He was standing on the shoulders of giants”

 

Or the corollary:

 

"If I have not seen further than others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders."

 

Jon


  • Dave Mitsky, Phil Cowell, Steve OK and 1 other like this

#33 John Fitzgerald

John Fitzgerald

    In Focus

  • *****
  • Posts: 6638
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2004
  • Loc: ROR Obs. near Pettigrew, AR

Posted 21 June 2019 - 11:31 AM

We are probably alone in this galaxy.



#34 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 21 June 2019 - 11:42 AM

I'm ignorant on the math...

 

How large (or small!) would an earth sized planet appear at 12 light years? 

 

Curious if we are close to a telescope that can resolve it.



#35 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 21 June 2019 - 02:27 PM

 I found a angle calculator that, if I entered everything correctly, came up with ~.00002 arc seconds. 

 

The Keck telescope advertises a resolution of .04 arc seconds. Long way to go!

 

Using a telescope/resolution calculator one would need a telescope mirror (or separation of mirrors) of ~6000 meters to barely resolve the planet. 

 

Now, for a 100km city on the planet one would need a mirror of 800,000 meters to resolve!

 

To see that 1 meter tall alien babe sunbathing on the beach a mirror of 100,000,000,000 meters would be required.

 

To see the alien's...uh, never mind. It just goes downhill from here. wink.gif  


  • Procyon likes this

#36 havasman

havasman

    Cosmos

  • ****-
  • Posts: 9840
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2013
  • Loc: Dallas, Texas

Posted 21 June 2019 - 02:47 PM

I've always been amused by the idea (outside of sci-fi) of exoplanet colonization. We can't yet take care of the one we have and that, in a potentially tragic application of circular logic, is often used to explain the need for "finding another home."


Edited by havasman, 21 June 2019 - 02:47 PM.

  • Jon Isaacs and TOMDEY like this

#37 Keith Rivich

Keith Rivich

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
  • Joined: 17 Jun 2011
  • Loc: Cypress, Tx

Posted 21 June 2019 - 03:12 PM

I've always been amused by the idea (outside of sci-fi) of exoplanet colonization. We can't yet take care of the one we have and that, in a potentially tragic application of circular logic, is often used to explain the need for "finding another home."

To those outside of science, or at least a passing knowledge of science, space flight is like flying a plane. Fire it up and go! No problem...


  • Phil Cowell and TOMDEY like this

#38 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6480
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 21 June 2019 - 03:59 PM

First, and foremost, don't we need Fusion Power? The limitless type. I think it's coming soon.



#39 Procyon

Procyon

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6480
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2009
  • Loc: Eastern Canada

Posted 21 June 2019 - 04:01 PM

We are probably alone in this galaxy.

You're really willing to discount about 1 trillion exoplanets? 5 Trillion moons? Do cells count? smile.gif

 

To quote Daniels in Alien: Covenant, "I mean we don't know what the ---- is out there."


Edited by Procyon, 21 June 2019 - 04:04 PM.


#40 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4373
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 21 June 2019 - 05:00 PM

Eventually Einstein's theories will be called Einstein's laws.

 

Any future physics will have to incorporate the insights of his discoveries, just as his incorporated Newtonian physics.

“Actually, a theory does not become a law and a law does not become a theory”

 

Probably a good idea to first ask, what is a law? It’s a pretty archaic idea, and it seems that we prefer to just call things phenomena and theories now. Hubble’s discoveries, despite very poor measurement accuracy got called laws, whereas the observations of the accelerating universe aren’t going to be called Perlmutter (et al.’s) laws any time soon, despite being measured more accurately.

 

And this is fine, b/c calling something a law is a rather fraught and inconsistent process, and it doesn’t do anything in itself to advance knowledge.

 

But there is reason to think that ‘theory’ can become law in a strict sense.

 

For example, Einstein used theory to discover that objects that move faster experience time more slowly, and they get heavier; and that energy and mass are equivalent.

 

Einstein’s “theories” about these phenomena were later observed and shown to be real. These phenomena might be called laws because they ought to apply throughout the universe. Perhaps the only reason not to do so would be that there are deeper organizing principles at play, but even that probably doesn’t preclude it. For example, the gas laws, Boyle’s law, Charles’s law, Avogadro’s law, are all special cases of the ideal gas law. But those special cases still get their “lawful” nomenclature.

So, yes, theories themselves do not become laws, but theories can be used to discover laws, and then describe them with mathematical elegance.

 

 

You further argue that “Natural laws such as Newton's laws are descriptive but not explanatory. Natural laws describe how nature behaves but do not provide a mechanism as to why nature behaves that way. ”

 

I see the “description/explanation” as a false distinction; description and explanation are one and the same.

 

Explanations emerge from from descriptions based on simple assumptions, and those only emerge because it turns out there is evidence for the predictions that come out of those descriptions.

We can describe (with great precision) how planets and galaxies behave, how stars explode, how fundamental particles behave. It is not as if we have something else that is substantive that we can point to and say “and there’s the explanation”.

All we can be tempted to say is that the “explanation” exists because there are humans who have a sense of satisfaction that something ‘makes good sense’.

 

When we see something like a planetary system behaving following Kepler's laws, we think “oh that's a beautiful mechanism that explains it.” And it does, but only because it describes its behavior and leads to predictions. No more.

 

I think the reason we are tempted to say "ah ha, we have explained it", is because the mathematical description of the behavior is satisfyingly intuitive to our silly ape brains.

 

But this is not always true. Once we get into the realm of really small stuff (quantum effects), and stuff that moves really quickly (relativity), we have exactly the same scientific approach--we describe the behavior of things using simplifying mathematics. But the things we are describing are utterly screwy and intuitively unappealing. Very unsatisfactory. But that is how nature works, and we just have to put up with it.

 

Things can be in the same place at the same time. Things moving faster experience less time. What??!!

 

When this happens we are tempted to ask “but what explains why this happens?” Well, there are equations, with assumptions, and that’s it. There is of course the ability to comprehend the equations, but again, the explanation is the equations which describe reality.

 

So as I see it, explanation in science is ultimately description. The better the theory, the more tight the relationship between description and behavior. The end.

 

What were we talking about?



#41 TOMDEY

TOMDEY

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4697
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014
  • Loc: Springwater, NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 05:42 PM

Many info-theorists (very seriously) contend that we are just subroutines running on some Universal Computer.

 

Old FORTRAN code always ended >

 

>

>

>

>CONTINUE

>STOP

>END

>QED

>RIP

 

They may be onto something!    Tom... gone Viral Tom


  • Procyon likes this

#42 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9896
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 06:33 PM

From Carlo L. Lastrucci’s book “The Scientific Approach” published in 1963:

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • CD3A98D3-7D0B-4512-83E9-CAF091B9B624.jpeg


#43 russell23

russell23

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9896
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 06:35 PM

From Moti Ben-Ari’s book “Just a Theory” published in 2005:

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • 810602D4-4A5A-4422-97FE-1139B5A0F713.jpeg
  • 28A41EDF-50AD-4918-812B-49322F335CC8.jpeg


#44 John Fitzgerald

John Fitzgerald

    In Focus

  • *****
  • Posts: 6638
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2004
  • Loc: ROR Obs. near Pettigrew, AR

Posted 21 June 2019 - 07:25 PM

You're really willing to discount about 1 trillion exoplanets? 5 Trillion moons? Do cells count? smile.gif

 

To quote Daniels in Alien: Covenant, "I mean we don't know what the ---- is out there."

Yes. By alone, I mean the only technologically advanced life.  There may be planets with plants or animals, but no intelligent life as we know it.  It takes special circumstances for intelligent life to come about, and many of those are mere chance.



#45 areyoukiddingme

areyoukiddingme

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4373
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2012

Posted 21 June 2019 - 08:05 PM

If we are quoting scripture:

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=b240PGCMwV0


  • Phil Cowell and russell23 like this

#46 Phil Cowell

Phil Cowell

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5983
  • Joined: 24 May 2007
  • Loc: Southern Tier NY

Posted 21 June 2019 - 08:43 PM

We are probably alone in this galaxy.

Or we will be if we find any other life.



#47 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79015
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 June 2019 - 09:00 PM

 I found a angle calculator that, if I entered everything correctly, came up with ~.00002 arc seconds. 

 

The Keck telescope advertises a resolution of .04 arc seconds. Long way to go!

 

Using a telescope/resolution calculator one would need a telescope mirror (or separation of mirrors) of ~6000 meters to barely resolve the planet. 

 

Now, for a 100km city on the planet one would need a mirror of 800,000 meters to resolve!

 

To see that 1 meter tall alien babe sunbathing on the beach a mirror of 100,000,000,000 meters would be required.

 

To see the alien's...uh, never mind. It just goes downhill from here. wink.gif  

 

Kevin:

 

I checked your calculations using both MathCad which understands units and my phone's calculator which does unit conversions and has the light-year as a unit. Both gave me 2.34 x 10-5 arc-seconds, this agrees with your number.  I also verified your 6000 meter aperture/separation.. 

 

That would be one large Dob.

 

Jon


  • Dave Mitsky and Procyon like this

#48 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79015
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 21 June 2019 - 09:03 PM

We are probably alone in this galaxy.

I would say that for practical purposes, we are alone.  

 

But at least the problem has been solved for the case of the spherical cow.

 

Jon


  • TOMDEY likes this

#49 Araguaia

Araguaia

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1546
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2018
  • Loc: deepest, darkest Brazil

Posted 22 June 2019 - 07:21 AM

I know about possible océans on Europa and Enceladus, but which is the third body?

Titan.  And there are probably oceans under other Saturnian and Jovian moons - we just haven't sent the right instruments there yet.  Also Triton, Pluto...  

 

These are lot more interesting for astrobiology than exoplanets.  We could acuatally get samples back.  For exoplanets, the most we will get, even far in the future, is the sort of image we had of Pluto before New Horizons.  A few pixels, endlessly parsed, but never hinting at what we found there when we sent a probe.



#50 Matt78

Matt78

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 346
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2019
  • Loc: Maine

Posted 22 June 2019 - 10:47 AM

Maybe. OTOH, complex life is a hard thing to get....it seems. The rise of the eucaryote cell is possibly a freak accident on Earth. Procaryotes have spend possibly billions of years on their own on the planet before a (again possibly) one time event leading to complex cells.

The time frame in which we live maybe far too short to find complex life. Then again, maybe not.


We don't know how rare cells are, but it's pretty amazing how easily the building blocks of life come together. The Urey-Miller experiments are an interesting read. I was told by a biology professor that they set up a number of long term experiments just tossing the ingredients in a pot, and freezing them for years, without even the electricity used in the first experiment. The ones at more moderate subfreezing temps did you'reresults, and he said they have another in a freezer at Harvard around -100 that's been running for decades.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics