Habitable Exoplanet Found?

[Dorian Gray]

Would living on a planet with more gravity than we're used to have any unwanted effects on our bodies?

It will be a lot like working out all the time while living in the mountains of Colorado. But in the long run, it would be beneficial for you, in the sense that you would be leaner and healthier from your body using far more of the food you eat for fuel because of all the physical exertion.

It's living in gravity LOWER than that of Earth that is harmful. Well, unless you don't plan on coming back to Earth.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The air would be thinner on a heavier planet?

 

[Puppycow]

Though neither planet is of uniform density, and that screws up the estimate a bit, if they were of equal average density, then the mass of this planet would be 3x larger and the radius would be the cube root of 3 larger. On the surface of this planet the gravitational acceleration would be 3/3^(2/3) = 3^(1/3) = 1.44 times stronger than Earth's. Just in case you really were wondering.

I was. Thanks.

 

[Puppycow]

'100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet?

Pretty big claim there.

 

[dasmiller]

'100 percent' chance for life on newly found planet?

Pretty big claim there.

I'd say it's an absurd claim. We don't actually know exactly how or where life started on Earth, and Earth is the only example that we have. Thus, even if we'd found a planet in the Goldilocks zone with Earth's mass and rotation and general composition, we couldn't say that life would necessarily start there. This one isn't Earth's mass, and we really don't know the composition or rotation, but it's likely that both are significantly different from ours.

We simply don't know enough about either that planet or how life starts to make assertions like that.

 

[Jim_MDP]

"The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. "I have almost no doubt about it."

What a silly thing for him to say.
I'm hoping there was a bit of quote mining.

 

[Dinwar]

Well, we don't know the specifics. But we DO konw that it arose remarkably fast (oldest evidence of life is 3.6 billion years old, in Australia), which indicates that simple life arises relatively easily. I acknowledge that it could be due to organic molecules seading the planet and jump-starting the process here on Earth, and that this process may not have happened on the other planet, or some similarly unlikely scenario, but it's not unreasonable, given what we know, to assume that life would have arisen just as readily on this exoplanet as it did on Earth.

I'll agree that it's premature by a huge margine--we don't even know if there's water on the planet (likely, but not 100% sure), so we can't say that it 100% does have life. I'm just of the opinion that hypothesizing that this planet has life is not unreasonable, and that we should look for evidence of it.

 

[dasmiller]

Well, we don't know the specifics. But we DO konw that it arose remarkably fast (oldest evidence of life is 3.6 billion years old, in Australia), which indicates that simple life arises relatively easily. I acknowledge that it could be due to organic molecules seading the planet and jump-starting the process here on Earth, and that this process may not have happened on the other planet, or some similarly unlikely scenario, but it's not unreasonable, given what we know, to assume that life would have arisen just as readily on this exoplanet as it did on Earth.

I'll agree that it's premature by a huge margine--we don't even know if there's water on the planet (likely, but not 100% sure), so we can't say that it 100% does have life. I'm just of the opinion that hypothesizing that this planet has life is not unreasonable, and that we should look for evidence of it.

No argument there. There are certainly good reasons for thinking that abiogenesis may be relatively common (to the extent that "an average of once every 200 cubic parsecs over the life of the universe, but only in the most favorable parts of a galaxy" can be considered "common"). My issue was with Vogt saying "100 percent."

 

[Fnord]

Yeah quick, let's do it!

Now let's check;
Packed lunch......Check
Flask of tea........Check
A coat in case it rains........Check
Seat-belts on........Check
Enough fuel to go approximately 120 trillion miles........ hmmmm I've got a jerry-can in the boot!

What? No towel?!!

 

[Fnord]

So, let's see, if they're watching now, they're seeing our 1990 programming. That would mean The Simpsons, The Cosby Show, Northern Exposure, and . . . oh, no . . . Blossom.

> Here is a more complete list <

We'd really better hope there's nobody home at Gliese 581.

Right now, they're watching the last episodes of Alf and Pee-Wee's Playhouse ... be afraid ... be very, very afraid ...

​

 

[Dragoonster]

"The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says. "I have almost no doubt about it."

What a silly thing for him to say.
I'm hoping there was a bit of quote mining.

I think it is, prefaced by "in my opinion", which admittedly might not be a scientifically approved caveat.

This could well be the most significant (philosophical/religious/humanistic) discovery in human history btw, if it's true, which I estimate albeit inebriated at 70% likelihood. 20 light years is pretty damned close, so I reckon it's only decades (or years) away before we know if it (life) is true. Less if the monies that be install space-based coronagraph arrays or whatever.

You may have just witnessed history.

 

[Corsair 115]

Well, we don't know the specifics. But we DO konw that it arose remarkably fast (oldest evidence of life is 3.6 billion years old, in Australia), which indicates that simple life arises relatively easily.

But, on Earth at least, it took a really long time before that initial life became large enough to be seen without a microscope. So if the planet in question was teeming with bacterial life, could we detect that? Or does life have to be fairly large and complex (e.g. trees or animals) and widespread on the surface before we could detect it via spectrographic analysis of the atmosphere?

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

as far as life goes, the planet would have had a lot longer than earth 7-11Gyr, compared to 4.7Gyr for our solar system).
I think there could be bacterial life of some sort (or an alien equivalent), it has had long enough!
It took quite a long time for anything much more complex than single celled life to evolve on earth, so it might not have got any further than the basics.

I would imagine that if they could do some kind of spectral measurement in the near future, then it might be possible to detect chemicals in the atmosphere like oxygen that would indicate life.

exciting!

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yeah quick, let's do it!

Now let's check;
Packed lunch......Check
Flask of tea........Check
A coat in case it rains........Check
Seat-belts on........Check
Enough fuel to go approximately 120 trillion miles........ hmmmm I've got a jerry-can in the boot!

I was left with a few questions after reading the article.

If a planet is traveling at such high speeds, how can it form an atmosphere?

The orbital speed has no influence on the atmosphere. Remember, it is in a vacuum, no air resistance.

Bearing in mind the temperature extremes, wouldn't any atmosphere that did form be subject to horrendous wind speeds?

Interesting question. The weather systems will be fundamentally different from those on Earth, because the slow rotation means that the Coriolis force is much lower. Thus, low and high pressures will fill considerably more easily, and thermal cells may may be dominated by a donut shaped wind system, instead of the rotary system we know here. Also, given the bigger reach of the gravity field and the higher gravity, the atmosphere may be much thicker, so imagine a hurricane in a 5 bar atmosphere .

Do you think that it'll have a McDonald's?

Well, based on the present known distribution, the statistical estimate should indicate that it will have several.

Hans

 

[NotJesus]

Well, based on the present known distribution, the statistical estimate should indicate that it will have several.

And 1,100 Starbucks.

(Starbuckses?)

 

[MRC_Hans]

And 1,100 Starbucks.

(Starbuckses?)

Not sure about that, since the McD to Starbuck ratio varies greatly, even on Earth. For instance in Denmark, McD is on every corner, but there is only 1 (one) Starbuck's.

Hans

 

[quarky]

Life forms similar to the newer ones found at deep-sea thermal vents would be very difficult to detect. Look at how long it took us to discover them! (They didn't exist when I was taking college biology courses). Even more bizarre life forms, in more hostile environments are becoming more plausible.

 

[chillzero]

(They didn't exist when I was taking college biology courses).

I think they probably did.

 

[BenBurch]

I know its a heterodox opinion, but I do not discount panspermia; Life could have existed in some other solar system first, and was transported to ours on comets and etc. In fact the galaxy could be full of life all coming from a single abiogenesis event.

I'm not saying this is how life appears in the Hadean record as soon as there were oceans, but that it cannot be discounted and an explanation.

 

[Madalch]

I know its a heterodox opinion, but I do not discount panspermia; Life could have existed in some other solar system first, and was transported to ours on comets and etc. In fact the galaxy could be full of life all coming from a single abiogenesis event.

I'm not saying this is how life appears in the Hadean record as soon as there were oceans, but that it cannot be discounted and an explanation.

Which is why it would be so valuable to find out if this planet harbours life and what its biochemistry is like.