Three exoplanet candidates found by the Planet Hunters citizen science project. Credit: Zooniverse
In the current (heated) debate of what constitutes a planet, it seems everyone can agree at least one thing: The current definition put forth by the International Astronomical Union is actually quite vague and it really only applies to our own Solar System. So while the definition is unclear at best in our own neighborhood, it also doesn’t provide a framework for classifying the thousands of exo-worlds that are being discovered on almost a weekly basis.
Since math has been dubbed “the language of the Universe” it seems rather fitting and logical to use arithmetic to help in framing a better definition for planethood.
This week, UCLA professor Jean-Luc Margot has proposed a simple mathematical test that can be used to separate planets from other bodies like dwarf planets and minor planets. He says his new system is easy.
“One should not need a teleportation device to decide whether a newly discovered object is a planet,” Margot said.
The new approach would use estimates of the star’s mass and the planet’s mass and orbital period. Since the IAU’s definition is based primarily on the ability of a planet to “clear its orbit,” (whether it can accumulate or dominate small bodies in its orbital neighborhood), Margot’s test narrows this down to a specific timeframe of determining whether a body can clear a specific region around its orbit.
“A simple metric can be used to determine whether a planet or exoplanet can clear its orbital zone during a characteristic time scale, such as the lifetime of the host star on the main sequence,” Margot writes in his paper. “This criterion requires only estimates of star mass, planet mass, and orbital period, making it possible to immediately classify 99% of all known exoplanets.”
Under these criteria, all 8 planets and all classifiable exoplanets would be classified as planets. It also keeps the distinction between planets and dwarf planets. Some have pointed out that Margot’s criteria would make our Moon a planet. But, as Margot told Universe Today, that’s not necessarily so. “It really depends on how the IAU decides to define satellites and if or how they decide to define double planets,” he said.
Margot says his definition would be useful in generalizing and simplifying the definition of a planet, and that the information for applying this for exoplanets is easily obtained with Earth- or space-based telescopes.
“The disparity between planets and non-planets is striking,” Margot said. “The sharp distinction suggests that there is a fundamental difference in how these bodies formed, and the mere act of classifying them reveals something profound about nature.”
Margot also found that bodies that can clear their orbits — and therefore qualify as planets — are typically spherical.
“Because a quantitative orbit-clearing criterion can be applied to all planets and exoplanets,” Margot writes, “it is possible to extend the 2006 IAU planet definition to stars other than the Sun and to remove any possible ambiguity about what it means to clear an orbital zone.”
Margot presented his proposal at the annual meeting of the AAS’s Division for Planetary Sciences. It is not known whether the new approach will be considered by the IAU.
This poster shows more than 500 exoplanets discovered before October 2015 arranged according to their temperature and density. Credit and copyright: Martin Vargic. Used by permission.
Here’s a great new poster showing over 500 extrasolar planets (about one quarter of the total) that have been discovered since 1988. This visualization, created by graphic artist and writer Martin Vargic from Slovakia, is based on the estimated radius and temperature of the planets, however other factors, such as density, age or stellar metallicity were also taken into consideration. All the various known classes of exoplanets are shown on the graphic, such as super-Earths, hot Jupiters, hot Neptunes, water worlds, gas dwarfs or superdense diamond planets.
There are lots of ways to plot exoplanets. On the Exoplanet Archive website, you can see plots for exoplanet mass vs. period, temperature, number of exoplanets discovered by year (2014 was a banner year), as well as how the planets were discovered (radial velocity, microlensing, timing variations and orbital brightness modulation).
Previously, we’ve featured other exoplanet visualizations, such as one of Kepler’s transiting exoplanets and exoplanet candidates, plus this cool video visualization of the planetary systems discovered by Kepler that have more than one transiting object, created by Daniel Fabrycky from the Kepler spacecraft science team:
Artist’s conception of proposed proposed High-Definition Space Telescope, which would have a giant segmented mirror and unprecedented resolution at optical and UV wavelengths. (NASA/GSFC)
Decades after its momentous launch, the ever popular Hubble Space Telescope merrily continues its trajectory in low-earth orbit, and it still enables cutting-edge science. Astronomers utilized Hubble and its instruments over the years to obtain iconic images of the Crab Nebula, the Sombrero Galaxy, the Ultra Deep Field, and many others that captured the public imagination. Eventually its mission will end, and people need to plan for the next telescope and the next next telescope. But what kinds of space exploration do scientists want to engage in 20 years from now? What technologies will they need to make it happen?
A consortium of physicists and astronomers attempt to answer these questions as they put forward and promote their bold proposal for a giant high-resolution telescope for the next generation, which would observe numerous planets, stars, galaxies and the distant universe in stunning detail. In addition to encouraging support for scientific discoveries that could be made, the telescope’s advocates also must investigate the potential technical challenges involved in constructing and launching it. An event organized at a SPIE optics and photonics conference in San Diego, California on Tuesday served as another step in this long-term process.
The Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), an influential organization of astronomers and physicists from 39 mostly US-based institutions, which operates telescopes and observatories for NASA and the National Science Foundation, laid out its proposal of a multi-wavelength High-Definition Space Telescope (HDST) in a new report last month. Julianne Dalcanton of the University of Washington and Sara Seager of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—veteran astronomers with impressive knowledge and experience with galactic and planetary science—led the committee who researched and wrote the 172-page document.
“It’s the science community staking out a vision for what’s the next thing to do,” said Phil Stahl, former SPIE president and senior physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. Speaking at the optics and photonics conference about the telescope provided “an opportunity to speak to the people who will be building it,” as many of the audience work on instrumentation.
As the HDST’s name suggests, its 12-meter wide segmented mirror would give it much higher resolution than any current or upcoming telescopes, allowing astronomers to focus on many Earth-like “exoplanets” orbiting stars outside our solar system up to 100 light-years away, resolve stars even in the Andromeda Galaxy, and image faraway galaxies dating back 10 billion years of cosmic time into our universe’s past. The 24x increased sharpness compared to Hubble and the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope is similar to the dramatic improvement of an UltraHD TV over a standard television, according to Marc Postman, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute.
A simulated spiral galaxy as viewed by Hubble and the proposed High Definition Space Telescope at a lookback time of approximately 10 billion years. Image credit: D. Ceverino, C. Moody, G. Snyder, and Z. Levay (STScI)
In particular, “exoplanets are the main science driver for the HDST,” said Seager. “Are there other planets like Earth, and are there signs of life on them?” Her and her colleagues’ excitement came through as she explained that, if the telescope comes to fruition, they predict it would find dozens, if not hundreds, of Earth-like planets in the habitable zone. They would look for evidence of oxygen and water vapor as well, transforming astronomers’ knowledge of such planets, currently limited to only 1 or 2 candidates detected by the Kepler telescope.
The Hubble telescope required 20 years of planning, technological development, and budget allocations before it was launched in 1990. Planning for NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which was also first proposed by AURA, began not long afterward. Rome wasn’t built in a day, but many years of preparations and research will come to fruition as it is set to launch in 2018. Its scientists and engineers hope that, like Hubble, it will produce spectacular images with its infrared cameras, become a household name, and expand our understanding of the universe.
Nevertheless, James Webb has been plagued by a ballooning budget and numerous delays, and Congress nearly terminated it in 2011. The telescope proved controversial even among some astronomers and space exploration advocates. As scientists develop the next generation of telescopes, JWST remains the multi-ton multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room. David Redding of Jet Propulsion Laboratory was quick to point out that, “for Hubble, almost every technology had to be invented!” For the proposed HDST, the task appears less daunting.
Nonetheless, scientists have technological challenges and difficult questions to look forward to. For example, they must choose among multiple competing designs and consider different methods for getting the telescope into space, possibly utilizing the Space Launch System (SLS). They also expect to leverage research on JWST’s sunshield, which will be necessary to keep the proposed telescope at an extremely stable temperature, and on its detectors, when developing optimized gigapixel-class cameras. Vibrational stability on the order of one trillionth of a meter will present an additional challenge for them.
If the astronomical community comes on board and prioritizes this project for the next decade, then it likely would be designed and constructed in the 2020s and then launched in the 2030s. In the meantime, they will need major investments of funding, research and development. According to Seager, it will certainly be worth it “to observe the whole universe at 100 parsec-scale resolution” and “discover dozens of Earths.” Adding emphasis, “that’s the killer app,” Postman concluded.
With astronomers discovering new planets and other celestial objects all the time, you may be wondering what the newest planet to be discovered is. Well, that depends on your frame of reference. If we are talking about our Solar System, then the answer used to be Pluto, which was discovered by the American astronomer Clyde William Tombaugh in 1930.
Unfortunately, Pluto lost its status as a planet in 2006 when it was reclassified as a dwarf planet. Since then, another contender has emerged for the title of “newest planet in the Solar System” – a celestial body that goes by the name of Eris – while beyond our Solar System, thousands of new planets are being discovered.
But then, the newest planet might be the most recently discovered extrasolar planet. And these are being discovered all the time.
An artist rendition of Kepler-444 planetary system, which hosts five planets, all smaller than Earth. Credit: Tiago Campante, University of Birmingham, UK.
Using data from the Kepler space telescope, an international group of astronomers has discovered the oldest known planetary system in the galaxy – an 11 billion-year-old system of five rocky planets that are all smaller than Earth. The team says this discovery suggests that Earth-size planets have formed throughout most of the Universe’s 13.8-billion-year history, increasing the possibility for the existence of ancient life – and potentially advanced intelligent life — in our galaxy.
“The fact that rocky planets were already forming in the galaxy 11 billion years ago suggests that habitable Earth-like planets have probably been around for a very long time, much longer than the age of our Solar System,” said Dr. Travis Metcalfe, Senior Research Scientist Space Science Institute, who was part of the team that used the unique method of asteroseismology to determine the age of the star.
The star, named Kepler-444, is about 25 percent smaller than our Sun and is 117 light-years from Earth. The system of five known planets is very compact, and all five planets orbit the parent star in less than 10 days, or within 0:08 AU, roughly one-fifth the size of Mercury’s orbit.
“The star is slightly cooler than the Sun (around 5000 K at the surface, compared to 5800 K),” Metcalfe told Universe Today, “but the planets in this system are still expected to be highly irradiated and inhospitable to life,” with little to no atmospheres.
The team wrote in their paper that the system’s habitable zone lies 0:47 AU from the parent star and so all planets orbit well interior to the inner edge of Kepler-444’s ‘Goldilocks zone.’
The team was led by Tiago Campante, a research fellow at the University of Birmingham in the UK.
The planets were found by analyzing four years of Kepler data, as the spacecraft had nearly continuous observations of Kepler-444 during Kepler’s active mission. The space telescope took high-precision measurements of changes in brightness in stars in its field of view. There are tiny changes in brightness when planets pass in front of their stars.
Transit signals indicated five planets orbiting Kepler-444, although this star has a binary companion, an M-dwarf, and it was a tedious process to tease out all the data to determine what were planets and not other stars, as well as which star the planets were orbiting. An image of the Kepler-444 star system using the NIRC2 near-infrared imager on the Keck II telescope. Credit: Tiago Campante et al.
Metcalfe said the the job of “validating” the planets by ruling out all of the other possible “false positive” scenarios is always a big challenge for Kepler targets.
But asteroseismology was used to directly measure the precise age of the star. Asteroseismology, or stellar seismology is basically listening to a star by measuring sound waves. The sound waves travel into the star and bring information back up to the surface. The waves cause oscillations that Kepler observes as a rapid flickering of the star’s brightness.
How can this help determine a star’s age?
“As a star ages, it converts hydrogen into helium in the core,” Metcalfe said via email. “This changes the mean density of the star over time, and asteroseismology provides a very precise measure of the mean density (from the regular spacing of the individual oscillation frequencies).”
Metcalfe said that in this case, the uncertainty on the age of the star (and thus the planets, which formed essentially at the same time) is only 9%, compared to a typical uncertainty of 30-50% from other methods based on rotation (gyrochronology) or other properties of the star.
The team also noted in their paper that this finding may also help to pinpoint the beginning of the era of planet formation.
“I think this system has a lot to teach us about planet formation and the long-term evolution of planetary systems,” said Darin Ragozzine, a professor at Florida Institute of Technology and a a member of the discovery team, who specializes in multi-transiting systems. “With an age of 11.2 billion years, it means that this system formed near the beginning of the age of the Universe.”
The team wrote that this finding implies that small, Earth-size, planets may have readily formed at early epochs in the Universe’s history, even when metals were more scarce.
“By the time Earth formed, this star and its planetary system were already older than our planet is today,” Ragozzine told Universe Today. “We don’t know for sure if this system has stayed the same the whole time, but it is amazing to think that the little inner planet has gone around the star about a trillion times!”
To find out more about asteroseismology, check out a website called the Pale Blue Dot Project. Metcalfe launched a non-profit organization to help raise research funds for the Kepler Asteroseismic Science Consortium. The Pale Blue Dot Project allows people to adopt a star to support asteroseismology, since there is no NASA funding for asteroseismology.
“Much of the expertise for this exists in Europe and not in the US, so as a cost saving measure NASA outsourced this particular research for the Kepler mission,” said Metcalfe, “and NASA can’t fund researchers in other countries.”
Metcalfe added that the “adopt a star” program supported the asteroseismic analysis of Kepler-444, “determining the precise age that makes this ancient planetary system so interesting… This private funding from citizens around the world has been an invaluable resource to facilitate our research and fuel amazing discoveries like this one.”
Imagine, if you would, a potential future for humanity… Imagine massive space-elevators lifting groups of men, women, and children skyward off Earth’s surface. These passengers are then loaded onto shuttles and ferried to the Moon where interstellar starships are docked, waiting to rocket to the stars. These humans are about to begin the greatest journey humanity has ever embarked upon, as they will be the first interstellar colonists to leave our home Solar System in order to begin populating other worlds around alien stars.
There are many things we must tackle first before we can make this type of science-fiction scene a reality. Obviously much faster methods of travel are needed, as well as some sort of incredible material that can serve to anchor the aforementioned space elevators. These are all scientific and engineering questions that humanity will need to overcome in the face of such a journey into the cosmos.
But there is one particular important feature that we can begin to tackle today: where do we point these starships? Towards which system of exoplanets are we to send our brave colonists?
Of all of the amazing things we need to discover or invent to make this scene a reality, discovering which worlds to aim our ships at is something that is actually being worked on today.
Artistic view of a possible space elevator. Image Credit: NASA
It’s an exciting era in astronomy, as astronomers are currently discovering that many of the stars that we view in the night sky have their own planets in orbit around them. Many of them are massive worlds, all orbiting at varying distances from their parent star. It is no surprise that we are discovering a vast majority of these Jupiter-sized worlds first; larger worlds are much easier to detect than the smaller worlds would be. Imagine a bright spotlight pointing at you some 500 yards away (5 football fields). Your job is to detect something the size of a period on this page that is orbiting around it that emits no light of its own. As you can see, the task would be daunting. But nevertheless, our planet hunters have been utilizing methods that enable us to accurately find these tiny specks of gas and rock despite their rather large and luminous companion suns.
However, it is not the method of finding these planets that this article is about; but rather what we do to figure out which of these worlds are worthy of our limited resources and attention. We very well cannot point those starships in random directions and just hope that they happen across an earth-sized planet that has a nitrogen-oxygen rich atmosphere with drinkable water. We need to identify which planets appear to have these mentioned characteristics before we go launching ourselves into the vast universe.
How can we do this? How is it possible that we are able to say with any level of certainty what a planet’s atmosphere is composed of when this planet is so small and so very far away? Spectroscopy is the answer, and it just might be the key to our future in the cosmos.
Artistic impression of what Kepler-186f may look like. Image Credit: NASA Ames/SETI Institute/JPL-CalTech
Just so I may illustrate how remarkable our scientific methods are for this very field of research, I will first need to show you the distances we are talking about. Let’s take Kepler 186f. This is the first planet we have discovered that is very similar to Earth. It is around 1.1 times larger than Earth and orbits within the habitable zone of its star which is very similar to our own star.
Let’s do the math, to show you just how distant this planet is. Kepler 186f is around 490 lightyears from Earth.
Kepler 186f = 490 lightyears away
Light moves at 186,282 miles/ 1 second.
186,282 mi/s x 60s/1min x 60min/1hr x 24hrs/1day x 356days/1year = 5.87 x 1012 mi/yr
Kepler 186f: 490 Lyrs x 5.87 x 1012miles/ 1 Lyr = 2.88 x 1015 miles or 2.9 QUADRILLION MILES from Earth.
Just to put this distance into perspective, let’s suppose we utilize the fastest spacecraft we have to get there. The Voyager 1 spacecraft is moving at around 38,500 mi/hr. If we left on that craft today and headed towards this possible future Earth, it would take us roughly 8.5 MILLION YEARS to get there. That’s around 34 times longer than the time between when the first proto-humans began to appear on earth 250,000 years ago until today. So the entire history of human evolution from then till now replayed 34 times BEFORE you would arrive at this planet. Knowing these numbers, how is it even possible that we can know what this planet’s atmosphere, and others like it, are made of?
First, here’s a bit of chemistry in order for you to understand the field that is spectroscopy, and then how we apply it to the astronomical sciences. Different elements are composed of a differing number of protons, neutrons, and electrons. These varying numbers are what set the elements apart from one another on the periodic table. It is the electrons, however, that are of particular interest in the majority of what chemistry studies. These different electron configurations allow for what we call spectral signatures to exist among the elements. This means that since every single element has a specific electron configuration, the light that it both absorbs and emits acts as a sort of photon fingerprint; a unique identifier to that element.
A list of the elements with their corresponding visible light emission spectra. Image Credit: MIT Wavelength Tables, NIST Atomic Spectrum Database, umop.net
The standard equation for determining the characteristics of light is:
c= v λ
c is the speed of light in a vacuum (3.00 x 108 m/s)
v is the frequency of the light wave (in Hertz)
λ (lambda) represents the wavelength (in meters, but will usually be converted to nanometers) which will determine what color of light will be emitted from the element(s), or simply where the wavelength of light falls on the electromagnetic spectrum (infrared, visible, ultraviolet, etc.)
If you have either the frequency or the wavelength, you can determine the rest. You can even start with the energy of the light being detected by your instruments and then work backwards with the following equations:
The energy of a photon can be described mathematically as this:
Ephoton = hv
OR
Ephoton = h c / λ
What these mean is that the energy of a photon is the product of the frequency (v) of the light wave emitted multiplied by Planck’s Constant (h), which is 6.63 x 10-34 Joules x seconds. Or in the case of the second equation, the energy of the photon is equal to Planck’s Constant x the speed of light divided by the wavelength. This will give you the amount of energy that a specific wavelength of light contains. This equation is also known as the Planck-Einstein Relation. So, if you take a measurement and you are given a specific energy reading of the light coming from a distant star, you can then deduce what information you need about said light and determine which element(s) are either emitting or absorbing these wavelengths. It’s all mathematical detective work.
So, the electrons that orbit around the nucleus of atoms exist in what we call orbitals. Depending on the atom (and the electrons associated with it), there are many different orbitals. You have the “ground” orbital for the electron, which means that the electron(s) there are closest to the nucleus. They are “non-excited”. However, there are “higher” quantum orbitals that exist that the electron(s) can “jump” to when the atom is excited. Each orbital can have different quantum number values associated with it. The main value we will use is the Principle Quantum Number. This is denoted by the letter “n”, and has an assigned integer value of 1, 2, 3, etc. The higher the number, the further from the nucleus the electron resides, and the more energy is associated with it. This is best described with an example:
A hydrogen atom has 1 electron. That electron is whipping around its 1 proton nucleus in its ground state orbital. Suddenly, a burst of high energy light hits the hydrogen. This energy is transferred throughout the hydrogen atom, and the electron reacts. The electron will instantaneously “vanish” from the n1 orbital and then reappear on a higher quantum orbital (say n4). This means that as that light wave passed over this hydrogen atom, a specific wavelength was absorbed by the hydrogen (this is an important feature to remember for later).
Diagram of an electron dropping from a higher orbital to a lower one and emitting a photon. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Eventually, the “excited” electron will drop from its higher quantum orbital (n4) back down to the n1 orbital. When this happens, a specific wavelength of light is emitted by the hydrogen atom. When the electron “drops”, it emits a photon of specific energy or wavelength (dependent upon many factors, including the state the electron was in prior to its “excitement”, the amount of levels the electron dropped, etc.) We can then measure this energy (or wavelength, or frequency,) to determine what element the photon is coming from (in this case, hydrogen). It is in this feature that each element has its own light signature. Each atom can absorb and emit specific wavelengths of light, and they are all tied together by the equations listed above.
So how does this all work? Well, in reality, there are many factors that go into this sort of astronomical study. I am simply describing the basic principle behind the work. I say this so that the many scientists that are doing this sort of work do not feel as though I have discredited their research and hard work; I promise you, it is painstakingly difficult and tedious and involves many more details that I am not mentioning here. That being said, the basic concept works like this:
We find a star that gives off the telltale signs that it has a planet orbiting around it. We do this with a few methods, but how it all first started was by detecting a “wobble” in the star’s apparent position. This “wobble” is caused by a planet orbiting around its parent star. You see, when a planet orbits a star (and when anything orbits anything else), the planet isn’t really orbiting the star, the planet AND the star are orbiting a common focal point. Usually with this type of orbital system, that common focal point is fairly close to the center of the star, and thus it’s safe to say that the planet orbits the star. However, this causes the star to move ever so slightly. We can measure this.
Once we determine that there are planets orbiting the star in question, we can study it more closely. When we do, we turn our instruments towards it and begin taking highly detailed measurements, and then we wait. What we are waiting for is a dimming of the star at a regular interval. What we are hoping for is this newly-found exoplanet to transit our selected star. When a planet transits a star, it moves in front of the star relative to us (this also means we are incredibly lucky, as not all planets will orbit “in front” of the star relative to our view). This will cause the star’s brightness to dip ever so slightly at a regular interval. Now we have identified a prime exoplanet candidate for study.
Diagram of how we can use absorption spectral reading to determine the atmosphere of an exoplanet. Image Credit: A. Feild, STScl, NASA
We can now introduce the spectroscopic principles to this hunt. We can take all sorts of measurements of the light that is coming from this star. Its brightness, the energy it’s kicking out per second, and even what that star is made of (the emission spectrum I discussed earlier). Then what we do is wait for the planet to transit the start, and begin taking readings. What we are doing is reading the light passing THROUGH the exoplanet’s atmosphere, and then studying what we can call an Absorption Spectrum reading. As I mentioned earlier, specific elements will absorb specific wavelengths of light. What we get back is a spectral reading of the star’s light signature (the emission spectra of the star), but with missing wavelengths that show up as very tiny black lines where there used to be color. These are called Fraunhofer lines, named after the “father” of astrophysics Joseph Fraunhofer, who discovered these lines in the 19th century.
The dark lines represent the light frequencies that were absorbed by specific chemicals that this particular light passed through. Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
What we now have in our possession is a chemical fingerprint of what this exoplanet’s atmosphere is composed of. The star’s spectrum is splayed out before us, but the barcode of the planet’s atmospheric composition lay within the light. We can then take those wavelengths that are missing and compare them to the already established absorption/emission spectra of all of the known elements. In this way, we can begin to piece together what this planet has to offer us. If we get high readings of sulfur and hydrogen, we have probably just discovered a gas giant. However if we discover a good amount of nitrogen and oxygen, we may have found a world that has liquid water on its surface (provided that this planet resides within its host star’s “habitable” zone: a distance that is just far enough from the star to allow for liquid water). If we find a planet that has carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, we may just have discovered alien life (CO2 being a waste product of both cellular respiration and a lot of industrial processes, but it can also be a product of volcanism and other non-organic phenomena).
What this all means is that by being able to read the light from any given object, we can narrow our search for the next Earth. Regardless of distance, if we can obtain an accurate measurement of the light moving through an exoplanet’s atmosphere, we can tell what it is made of.
We have discovered some 2000 exoplanets thus far, and that number will only increase in the coming decades. With so many candidates, it will be a wonder if we do not find a planet that we humans can live on without the help of technology. Obviously our techniques will further be refined, and as new technologies, methods, and instruments become available, our ability to pinpoint planets that we can someday colonize will become increasingly more accurate.
With such telescopes like the James Webb Space Telescope launching soon, we will be able to image these exoplanets and get even better spectroscopic readings from them. This type of science is on the leading edge of humanity’s journey into the cosmos. Astrophysicists and astrochemists that work in this field are the necessary precursors to the brave men and women who will one day board those interstellar spacecraft and launch our civilization into the Universe to truly become an interstellar species.
Possible glimpse into our future… Image Credit: Battlestar Wiki Media
Artist’s impression of how an an Earth-like exoplanet might look. Credit: ESO.
The search for worlds beyond our own is one of humankind’s greatest quests. Scientists have found thousands of exoplanets orbiting other stars in the Milky Way, but are still ironing out the details of what factors truly make a planet habitable. But thanks to researchers at Cornell University, their search may become a little easier. A team at the Institute for Pale Blue Dots has zeroed in on the range of habitable orbits for very young Earth-like planets, giving astronomers a better target to aim at when searching for rocky worlds that contain liquid water and could support the evolution of life.
The Habitable Zone (HZ) of a star is its so-called “Goldilocks region,” the not-too-hot, not-too-cold belt within which liquid water could exist on orbiting rocky planets. Isolating planets in the HZ is the primary objective for scientists hoping to find evidence of life. Until now, astronomers have mainly been searching for worlds that lie in the HZ of stars that are in the prime of their lives: those that are on the Main Sequence, the cosmic growth chart for stellar evolution. According to the group at Cornell, however, scientists should also be looking at cooler, younger stars that have not yet reached such maturity.
The increased distance of the Habitable Zone from pre-main sequence stars makes it easier to spot infant Earths. Credit: Astrophysical Journal Letters.
As shown in the figure above, cool stars in classes F, G, K, and M are more luminous in their pre-Main Sequence stage than they are once they mature. Planets that circle around such bright stars tend to have more distant orbits than those that accompany dimmer stars, making transits more visible and providing a larger HZ for astronomers to probe. In addition, the researchers found that fledgling planets can spend up to 2.5 billion years in the HZ of a young M-class star, a period of time that would allow ample time for life to flourish.
But just because liquid water could exist on a planet doesn’t mean that it does. A rocky planet must first acquire water, and then retain it long enough for life to develop. The Cornell group found that a watery world could lose its aqueous environment to a runaway greenhouse effect if if forms too close to a cool parent star, even if the planet was on course to eventually stray into the star’s HZ. These seemingly habitable planets would have to receive a second supply of water later on in order to truly support life. “Our own planet gained additional water after this early runaway phase from a late, heavy bombardment of water-rich asteroids,” offered Ramses Ramirez, one author of the study. “Planets at a distance corresponding to modern Earth or Venus orbiting these cool stars could be similarly replenished later on.”
Estimations for the HZs of cool, young stars and probable amounts of water loss for exoplanets orbiting at various distances are provided in a preprint of the paper, available here. The research will be published in the January 1, 2015, issue of The Astrophysical Journal.
Soft drink sizes, SUV’s, baseball caps, hot dogs and truck nuts.
Astronomers mostly measure stars in terms of mass and use the Sun as a yard stick. This star is 3 solar masses, that star is 10 solar masses, and so on.
We’re pandering to those of you who want the most massive stuff as opposed to the most volumetric stuff. So if you want the biggest truck, but don’t care if it’s got the most truck atoms in one place, this might not be for you.
How massive can planets get, and where can I order a custom one more massive than a star?
It all depends on what your planet is made of. There are two flavors of planets, gas and rock.
Gas planets, like Saturn and Jupiter are pretty much made of the same stuff as our Sun.
Jupiter’s pretty big, but it’s actually only about 1/1000th the mass of our star. If you made it more massive. by crashing about 80 Jupiters together, you’d get the same amount of mass as the smallest possible red dwarf star.
And all that mass would compress and heat up the core and it would ignite as a star.
Artist’s View of Extrasolar Planet HD 189733b
Extrasolar planet astronomers have turned up some pretty massive gas planets. The most massive so far contains 28.7 times the mass of Jupiter.
That’s so massive it’s more like a brown dwarf.
But if you had a planet entirely made of rock, like the Earth. It would need to be much, much larger before its core would ignite in fusion.
It would need to be dozens of times the mass of our Sun.
Stars with 8-11 stellar masses can fuse silicon. So a rocky planet would need millions of times the mass of the Earth before it would have that kind of pressure and temperature.
So you could get a situation where you have more mass than the Sun in a rock flavored world, and it wouldn’t ignite as a star. It would get pretty warm though.
No star can burn iron. In fact, when stars develop iron in their core, that’s when they shut down suddenly and you get a supernova.
Feel free to collect all the iron in the Universe together and lump it into a ridiculously huge pile and no matter how long you stare at for, it’ll never boil or turn into a star.
It might turn into a black hole, though.
Artist’s impression of Kepler-10c (foreground planet)
The largest rocky planet ever discovered is Kepler 10c, with 17 times the mass of Earth.
Massive, but nowhere near the smallest star.
There’s new research that says that heavier elements blasted out of supernovae might collect within huge star forming nebulae, like gold in the eddies of a river. This metal could collect into actual stars. Perhaps 1 in 10,000 stars might be made of heavier elements, and not hydrogen and helium.
Metal stars.
So, it’s theoretically possible. There might be corners of the Universe where enough metal has collected together that you could end up with a star that’s made up of planety stuff. And that’s pretty amazing.
What do you think? If we found one of these giant metal stars, what should we call it?
And if you like what you see, come check out our Patreon page and find out how you can get these videos early while helping us bring you more great content!
Artist’s impression of a massive asteroid belt in orbit around a star. Earth's water may not have all come from asteroids and comets, so maybe that's true for exoplanets. Credit: NASA-JPL / Caltech / T. Pyle (SSC)
As readers of Universe Today know, exoplanets are one of the hottest topics in astronomy today. In just the past six months, astronomers have announced the discovery of more than 700 planets orbiting other stars, bringing the total to more than 1700. These discoveries include the first Earth-size planet found in what’s called the habitable zone of a star, where liquid water could exist; the oldest known planet that could support life; and the first rocky “mega-Earth,” a planet that’s much like Earth except that it’s 17 times more massive.
On July 9, at 19:00 UTC (3 pm EDT, 12:00 pm PDT), three exoplanet hunters will come together discuss the discovery boom, consider the next steps in the hunt for habitable worlds, and debate whether we’re likely to find alien life in the next decade.
You can watch live (or watch the webcast later) below:
The panel includes MIT’s Zachory Berta-Thompson, Stanford’s Bruce Macintosh and Université de Montréal’s Marie-Eve Naud) will come together discuss the recent discovery boom, consider the next steps in the hunt for habitable worlds, and ponder the odds of finding life on another planet. The discussion will be moderated by journalist Kelen Tuttle.
To submit questions ahead of time or during the webcast, send an email to [email protected] or post on Twitter with hashtag #KavliLive. You can find additional information about the webcast and the Kavli Foundation here.
